backtop


Print 166 comment(s) - last by Motoman.. on May 13 at 12:37 PM


The 2009 E85-capable Buick Lucerne  (Source: AutoSpectator)

The 2009 E85-capable Hummer H2  (Source: HummerGuy)
Obama says that low gas prices should not deter the biofuel industry

While some cellulosic ethanol producers, such as Coskata, may be able to survive in a $2.00/gallon gasoline world, most ethanol and biofuel producers are teetering on the brink of disaster.  Meanwhile, a 2007 energy law championed by President George W. Bush mandates that the U.S. produce 11.1 billion gallons of biofuels this year, 60 percent more than in 2007.

President Barack Obama is looking to enforce this mandate and is creating a special task force to come up with ways to keep biofuels competitive at current gas prices.  He faces a steep uphill battle.

Food crop-based VeraSun Energy, a partner of GM, filed for bankruptcy protection in November.  Since that time, three other major ethanol producers have filed for bankruptcy protection.  While the $787B USD federal stimulus law offers some relief in the form of  $786.5M USD in funding to  accelerate biofuels research and boost commercialization by providing additional funding for commercial biorefineries, many fear it won't be enough to save the industry.

On Tuesday, President Obama announced the new task force and called on Americans to embrace ethanol.  He states, "We must invest in a clean energy economy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  The steps I am announcing today help bring us closer to that goal.  If we are to be a leader in the 21st century global economy, then we must lead the world in clean energy technology. Through American ingenuity and determination, we can and will succeed."

He hopes the stimulus package will kick off such a revival, with $480M USD for pilot- and demonstration-scale biorefineries; $176.5M USD for commercial-scale biorefinery projects; and $130M USD for research, among other things.  By 2022, the 2007 energy law requires the U.S. to use 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel.

One key obstacle for the food-crop ethanol industry is that it has been accused both of raising food prices and contributing to global warming.  The Environmental Protection Agency is currently evaluating whether the large amounts of energy expended on crop harvest, processing, and the water and energy spent during fermentation or other methods equates to more net emissions of greenhouse gases than gasoline well to pump to tailpipe emissions.

Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen disputes such claims stating, "EPA has reconfirmed the fact that when directly compared to gasoline, ethanol significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.  This apples-to-apples comparison reaffirms the substantial greenhouse gas reductions offered by ethanol calculated in numerous studies including one done recently for the International Energy Agency."

The current EPA figures he refers to do include impact from growing corn and the impact on land use -- such as cutting down forests to grow crops.  California already considers such indirect factors in its own emissions standard.  Jeremy Martin, of the Union of Concerned Scientists says that such consideration is essential, stating, "The best biofuels take a big bite out of global warming emissions without gobbling up our food crops."

Food-crop ethanol, despite its downsides, does provide a key nationalistic advantage of moving production inside the U.S. and protecting our nation's fuel source from unstable foreign national influences.  Ultimately, cellulosic ethanol may be the best bet as it is both cheap, doesn't use food crops, features lower emissions (in many cases), and offers the same national security benefits.  While no companies currently offer production-level cellulosic ethanol production, a handful, like Coskata, are on the verge of production-level commercial deployment.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Yeah well
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 4
I'm calling on Obama to shut the f*ck up.

Ethanol is a worthless venture. If you want to go to biofuel, do what works and doesn't raise global food prices. Diesel produced by algae.

Diesel's get far better fuel economy so you don't need as much fuel to begin with. Plus its energy content is higher than that of ethanols.

About all ethanol is good for is as race gas. Makes a good, cheap high octane fuel for performance cars. I know of a few GTOs running the stuff that are making 500-700 hp. You just need high enough compression and it tuned right.




RE: Yeah well
By Chiisuchianu on 5/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah well
By yomamafor1 on 5/7/2009 1:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well he DOES have to please those groups who gave him campaign funds when he was running for the president...


RE: Yeah well
By deeznuts on 5/7/2009 3:24:47 PM , Rating: 4
You mean like the heads of AIG, all the major banks, hedge funds, Fortune 500 company execs etc that he spent the last 100 days tearing down?


RE: Yeah well
By Samus on 5/7/2009 6:04:04 PM , Rating: 5
All I'll say is E85 makes for awesome performance fuel with a nominal octane of 103 (R+M)/2.

In turbocharged vehicles like my Focus SVT, simply fitting ethanol-compliant fuel line, fuel rail and port matching your injectors allows for ridiculous, deisel-levels of compression. The problem is most E85 vehicles don't take advantage of E85 correctly, and are negatively impacted because of the fast burning nature of alcohol (which is why using E85 results in lower fuel economy.) However, the cool burning nature of alcohol can theoretically extend engine life, and since it burns cleaner, makes carbon deposits a thing of the past.

I live in California and the best quality pump gas you can purchase is 91 octane, barely suitable for even stock european and japanese performance vehicles. Most of us have to mix a level of ethanol in with our gas everytime we fill up just to prevent pre detonation, ping, spark knock, etc. It sucks.

GM has doomed E85 by making cars 'compatible' with it but not designed specifically to take advantage of it. The only cars that will benifit from E85 are cars that have high compression cylinders or forced induction (in which case the computer simply runs in performance mode)

*performance doesn't neccessarily refer to engine horsepower, but fuel performance. Higher boost levels means a more efficient production of HP, inevitably increasing fuel economy.


RE: Yeah well
By Alexstarfire on 5/8/2009 12:46:52 AM , Rating: 1
While cars not fully utilizing E85 certainly doesn't help the FE, but the reason why it'll never match the FE per gallon of gas is because it has a lower energy density. You can't change facts.


RE: Yeah well
By inperfectdarkness on 5/8/2009 1:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
you're making the naieve assumption that a conventional IC engine is 100% efficient in the consumption of gasoline.

you'd be stupifyingly wrong.

ethanol burning IC engines can be tuned to more completely capitalize on the BTU's in the fuel--rendering it MORE efficient than gasoline...even if you were to record the same MPG.


RE: Yeah well
By Starcub on 5/9/2009 1:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow I doubt that. My guess is that IC engines are far closer to state of the art than any alternative fuel variant. You design engines to match the performance of the fuel. Ethanol is low performance in comparison to gasoline.

FYI, no combustion engine is going to be anywhere near 100% efficiency. IIRC, the conventional IC engine is closer to 30% efficiency.


RE: Yeah well
By inperfectdarkness on 5/11/2009 12:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
engines don't need a redesign. ethanol burns more efficiently than gasoline in the existing designs. this is due to its burn characteristics. i can't really break it down further than that without going into post-graduate level thermodynamics.

there's also the possibility that ethanol could become the fuel of choice for HCCI engines.


RE: Yeah well
By inperfectdarkness on 5/8/2009 1:04:13 PM , Rating: 3
pretty sure i've been preaching this exact same thing on dailytech for 2+ years. it's good to know that the truth has finally started spreading.


RE: Yeah well
By Nfarce on 5/7/2009 9:40:59 PM , Rating: 3
Then you have stories like this with these morons running Washington these days:

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

By Paul Kane

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/...

This is getting good. Not even four months in full power, and the Democrats are showing their true selves.


RE: Yeah well
By web2dot0 on 5/8/2009 1:19:00 PM , Rating: 3
You just love to go off-tangent with you rant huh?
Just like Iraq war is a success and Fanny and Freddy is the root cause of this financial fiasco right, and deregualtion have nothing to do with the financial melt down?

Spare me your Rep. speak and get back to the real challenges in America.

Republican have already shown their true selves for the last 40years.

Small gov't (right .... have ANY of the Rep. presidents actually SHRUNK the gov't?)

Lower taxes (right ... and how will take help a failing business .... right ... less tax your business that is already sending all you profits to OffShore account which you won't get tax at all).

These 1950's ideas are getting really old, why don't we try something new for a change and you shut the hell up and accept that fact that you guys will be out of power for the next 20+ years and your intellectual elite Rush L. and Sarah Palin lead your party to oblivion.


RE: Yeah well
By Spuke on 5/8/2009 5:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These 1950's ideas are getting really old, why don't we try something new for a change and you shut the hell up
If we were actually doing something new, I'd agree with the shut up part, but we aren't. We continue to perpetuate the same ole sh!t. Dems/ Repubs do the same things for the same reasons. There's not a difference between the groups because at the end of the day, WE the people STILL don't get want we want. Yes, yes I know there were no credible independents since Perot but why must we insist on voting in the status quo and rehashing the same old bullshit arguments every 4 friggin years? Dem's are crap, Repub's are crap.

I have an idea. How about we institute some REAL change by NOT voting for either a Dem or a Repub during the Congressional elections followed by the Presidential Election. Only when these fools get voted out of power will they understand.


RE: Yeah well
By Nfarce on 5/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah well
By Nfarce on 5/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah well
By Nfarce on 5/8/2009 11:22:28 PM , Rating: 1
OH yeah, and here's yet another example of your "Change" you can believe in IDIOCY :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_go_pr_wh...


RE: Yeah well
By borismkv on 5/10/2009 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
1950s ideas? What about the 1930s ideas that were thrown into that stimulus package? Are you an idiot? Are you so stupid you can't realize that *everything* Obama is doing has been done before? The new deal didn't work. FDR *died* before the American economy finally, fully recovered from the great depression. But we're trying it again. And sure, it might work for a little while, but it'll either cost another trillion dollars in 3 years or the economy will nosedive even worse than it has after that first stimulus runs dry. Americans need to stop living on the teets of the US Government.


RE: Yeah well
By Jalek on 5/11/2009 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
One difference is that FDR's jobs programs built several hydroelectric dams, roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.

Obama's can't do any of those things. His contributors oppose all infrastructure and development to support a growing population.

They apparently believe the stories that water powered cars and the like have been suppressed and it would only take a $5/gallon tax to get them into production. Cap and trade's all about this, except it's for all energy types.

So far, the environuts haven't found any energy source they don't oppose, but they refuse to move to the caves to live on bugs and berries like they think everyone should.


RE: Yeah well
By quiksilvr on 5/7/2009 2:24:40 PM , Rating: 5
He has a lot to learn. If he really wants to make progress on the biofuel, he should open the doors to non-psychoactive hemp for our biofuels. Its cheaper, it doesn't cut down the world food supply, it easy to maintain and ITS WHAT RUDOLF DIESEL USED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW HIS FIRST ENGINE WORKED!


RE: Yeah well
By EBH on 5/7/2009 2:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, hemp can create alot of products.

I want to know how costly its going to be to place conversion kits on cars to run any sort of alternative fuel.


RE: Yeah well
By 67STANG on 5/8/2009 12:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good point, hemp can create alot of products.

Very true. One of them is marijuana-- which will probably be legal soon anyhow.


RE: Yeah well
By Murloc on 5/7/2009 3:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
it would really be a good idea.....

Anyway 2$/gallon is sooo low, americans pay nothing for gas.
They have to tax it more or something to obtain results.


RE: Yeah well
By phxfreddy on 5/7/2009 4:08:56 PM , Rating: 3
Let me quite respectfully say "screw you!"

Americans pay enough taxes thank you very much.

And this is not going to get any better with President Barack "Robert Mugabe" Obama running his money printing presses on turbo!


RE: Yeah well
By Souka on 5/7/2009 7:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
money printing presses?

Actually, GWB was critised for printing money to falsely bolster his budgets....whereas Obama has stopped this rampant printing. The money he's "spending" is real money...loans are being taken out which is a differnt matter.

GWB's method leads to rapid inflation, Obama's method leads to rapid debt.

Both suck...but there isn't a clear answer to our woes.

My $.02


RE: Yeah well
By Laereom on 5/7/2009 7:23:54 PM , Rating: 4
A pretty good answer would be staying the hell out of our economy and letting the markets decide what alternative fuels get adopted.

It's inevitable that with the reduction in available fossil fuels and dramatic gains in technologies to produce biofuels that we are going to make the switch within a decade or two; and I doubt anything Obama is going to do will bring that even so much as a year closer.

Furthermore, he -is- printing money. He's also taking on debt.

Because via the central bank / reserve model, the government must take on debt (which it owes to the federal reserve) in order to print money. The deficit this year looks like it may hit 1 trillion dollars. There is NO WAY we are going to gather enough money which isn't already tied up in debt to cover that loss. And if we did, that's a trillion dollars that are sucked up out of the private economy which would otherwise go to corporations, consumers, entrepreneurs, etc.

The fact of the matter is, both GWB and Obama's policies inevitably lead to both lots of inflation and lots of debt. Obama just accelerated the process by 1.5-2.5 times.


RE: Yeah well
By bjacobson on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah well
By Laereom on 5/7/2009 8:24:19 PM , Rating: 5
Okay, dude, here's how it works:

Government sells bonds. If no one else buys them, the federal reserve takes them and gives the government freshly printed central bank notes.

The government deposits those federal bank notes, and they are now recognized as M0 money by banks, contributing to their reserve ratios.

I'm not sure what the present reserve ratio is, but as a rule, any government deficit which can't be auctioned off to people outside the reserve ends up adding 4-9x that amount into the M1 money supply (which is M0 + checkbook money, credit, etc).

This money, and the inflation which accompanies it, does not go away. Even if the government pays off its debts, those notes are already printed and sitting in banks. They are not destroyed. The only thing the government paying off debt achieves is the prevention of the creation of treasury notes at an even faster rate.

So, while the president may not have authority to print off money, by allowing his congress to pass a budget with gigantic deficit spending, he is signing off on the printing of vast amounts of money which will dilute everyone who keeps their assets in fiat-linked investments value.

Personally, I'm a believer in holding commodities as long-term stores of value, but hey, I'm a crazy libertarian. :)


RE: Yeah well
By msomeoneelsez on 5/8/2009 2:25:55 AM , Rating: 5
Can I hear an "AMEN!" and a few "Hell yeah's"?

Let me just say that you just displayed the exactly correct way of thinking about the economy and government debt.

About libertarians, it is really interesting how everyone that I know who has really looked into economics and politics have become libertarians. Heck, as moderate as I try to be, I just find it really hard to not consider myself to be at least biased towards libertarianism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70hogc_9UVE

Keep posting Laereom... some people *might* finally listen to reason over political madness. Well, we can always hope so anyways :D


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 2:59:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
About libertarians, it is really interesting how everyone that I know who has really looked into economics and politics have become libertarians. Heck, as moderate as I try to be, I just find it really hard to not consider myself to be at least biased towards libertarianism...


I think most Americans are probably libertarians the just don't know it yet. The libertarian position just makes the most sense, the majority of Americans don't think the government needs to spend us into oblivion (fiscal conservatism) and they don't think the government needs to be invading our private lives (social liberalism).

There is a better choice than the Leftist/Statist Democrats and the Quasi Conservative Neo-Cons in the Republican party, and the choice is neither of them. If anything good comes from this rapid expansion of government and the inevitable crash of the entire system as a result of its unsustainability its the end of the two major parties and their monopoly on power.


RE: Yeah well
By Starcub on 5/9/2009 1:51:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The libertarian position just makes the most sense, the majority of Americans don't think the government needs to spend us into oblivion (fiscal conservatism) and they don't think the government needs to be invading our private lives (social liberalism).

Then most americans fell asleep in their history courses. The best option is fiscal discipline and a balanced budget.

The arguement that debt creates weath is what got us into this mess. Goverment pressure on banks to increase the money supply, and limits placed on financial regulators allowed irresponsible spenders the opportunity to drive us all into debt. Now explain to us how a more liberal attitude to financial management is going to help?

I won't go into social libertarianism, which even libertarians acknowledge is fraught with problems. Go take a listen to some of the hair brained discussions that the folks over at the CATO Institute are having.


RE: Yeah well
By BansheeX on 5/8/2009 3:42:23 AM , Rating: 4
I have wet dreams of seceding and starting a libertarian state with a fresh constitution written with what we know now, having seen the subversion of our original one.

The key to a prosperous economy is really quite simple: voluntary trade and a government that taxes indiscriminately at a low, flat percent to protect against involuntary abuses and fraud. When people are allowed to choose their own money, they choose a product as money. Money is simply the most commonly accepted product for facilitating trade that is more efficient than barter. You never want a money that can be counterfeited by its issuer at no labor or material cost. This seems rather obvious and leads to many consequences and distortions, but to most people it's not. On a gold standard, it was impossible for any nation to substitute production with promises for a long period of time. Our desire for education, armaments, and health care is infinite but our productive capacity to finance it is not, so we broke away from gold's discipline and borrowed from foreigners at interest. We went from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in a few decades, like a 14 year old's first credit card binge. They've been subsidizing our consumption for so long that our economy has become 70% consumer driven! Get your wheelbarrows ready for when foreigners revolt from having to live in squalor while doing all the product-making because their governments debase their currency in sympathy with ours to subsidize our consumption of their products. Exporting products only makes sense to the extent that you're being paid back with imported products. What they do now is make products and exchange them for our paper promises. They're going to figure this out now that we're out of the euphoria of the bubble.


RE: Yeah well
By Spuke on 5/8/2009 5:51:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They're going to figure this out now that we're out of the euphoria of the bubble.
This isn't the first bubble nor will it be the last. WE have collective short term memory. There will be some changes but as soon as things get good, "everyone" will forget the bad days and start over again. It'll happen again (bubble burst), it just won't be for the same reasons as now.


RE: Yeah well
By eddieroolz on 5/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah well
By rcc on 5/8/2009 6:47:51 PM , Rating: 1
And you are making yourself look like a whiny "no one can have it better than me" clown

And I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.

It's all a matter of how your country chooses to pay for things. If it's through gas tax, fine. But that's not necessarily the answer for every society.


RE: Yeah well
By TomZ on 5/7/2009 4:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anyway 2$/gallon is sooo low, americans pay nothing for gas.
Low? $2/gallon is TOO HIGH! It is only that high because of global price-fixing amongst some of the larger producers (OPEC). Without such price-fixing, the price would surely be lower.


RE: Yeah well
By Jargo on 5/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 10:49:05 AM , Rating: 5
You guys elected a bunch of socialists you gotta pay for all those programs and government services somewhere.


RE: Yeah well
By Starcub on 5/9/2009 1:56:43 PM , Rating: 1
It's more than that, they probably pay about 20% more for oil than we do. We get oil cheap in this country, most people don't appreciate just how cheap it is.

Personally, I'm for higer taxes as well, in order to subsidize more responsible alternatives.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 3:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I'd like to be pro-hemp, I'm afraid that *any* dedicated crop will "cut down on the world food supply."

In order to grow a dedicated crop, you have to plant it on arable land, and there's only X amount of arable land around. You can choose to grow food on it...or you can choose to grow fuel on it. If you grow fuel on it, there is less food available.

Of course, you can then cut down more rainforest to increase the amount of arable land...but then not only have you destroyed another little bit of crucial rainforest ecology and all the ancillary fun that goes with that, but the above arguement still applies...growing food on that new arable land would mean more food to eat. Growing fuel still means you have detracted from the amount of food we could have had.


RE: Yeah well
By Steve1981 on 5/7/2009 3:49:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In order to grow a dedicated crop, you have to plant it on arable land, and there's only X amount of arable land around.


Hydroponics.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 3:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
...right. First of all, are any fuel-candidate plants amenable to growing that way? Secondly, it's not a low-cost way to grow things anyway...it just takes less acreage. It costs a lot of money to get the nutrients to the plants that they'd normally get out of the soil. Thereby upsetting even further any energy equity equations.


RE: Yeah well
By Steve1981 on 5/7/2009 3:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
First of all, are any fuel-candidate plants amenable to growing that way?


I think some people have experience with the aforementioned hemp...

quote:
Secondly, it's not a low-cost way to grow things anyway...It costs a lot of money to get the nutrients to the plants that they'd normally get out of the soil. Thereby upsetting even further any energy equity equations.


I never said it was perfect!


RE: Yeah well
By Starcub on 5/9/2009 2:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
We have lots of grassland in Florida owned by county govt's as nature preserves. In reality they aren't being maintained or converted for any type of use. There are plenty of cellulosic fuels that could be grown on this land. The plants that have thus far been engineered for this purpose are far far less errosive on the soil than food crops.


RE: Yeah well
By Laereom on 5/7/2009 8:29:08 PM , Rating: 3
High Density Vertical Bioreactors, a la Valcent, use comparatively miniscule amounts of wastewater, cost about $500k/acre to build, and produce anywhere from 40k to 100k gallons of biodiesel per acre. On top of that, they sequester CO2 (for those that care), and produce massive amounts of high protein algae biomass, which can be used as cattle feed, or ethanol, depending on which is more in demand. Before long, we'll likely be able to make plastic out of the stuff, as well.

That being said, the government ought to stay out of it and let the markets run their course. We'll be far better off in the long term for it, and it has the added advantage of not being financed by theft.


RE: Yeah well
By rcc on 5/8/2009 6:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and produce anywhere from 40k to 100k gallons of biodiesel per acre.


Could you attached a time frame to that please?


RE: Yeah well
By Laereom on 5/9/2009 4:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
My bad. That's per acre per year.


RE: Yeah well
By rcc on 5/12/2009 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you


RE: Yeah well
By akosixiv on 5/10/2009 8:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
hemp can be grown practically anywhere you want it to grow. See on how marijuana pops up in even the most unlikely of places.

It just needs some tender loving care. Although I doubt planting fuel hemp would equate to the same monetary gains as the drug one.


RE: Yeah well
By Chadder007 on 5/8/2009 12:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but then we will have kids sniffing exhaust's to get high....


RE: Yeah well
By Suomynona on 5/7/2009 2:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
So 53% of the country is made up of hippies now?


RE: Yeah well
By captainpierce on 5/7/2009 3:46:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So 53% of the country is made up of hippies now?


No. Mostly suckers.


RE: Yeah well
By freeagle on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2009 5:26:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'd bet like 90%, of the voters are average Americans, that do not have enough time or will to make their own opinion on the candidates , be it the republicans or democrats camp.


Which is why they should do us all a favor and not vote if they aren't going to keep up on what is happening in politics and put any thought into the consequences of the policies advocated by the candidates.


RE: Yeah well
By freeagle on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah well
By Laereom on 5/7/2009 8:33:50 PM , Rating: 3
I think 'us' could include even the 90% of voters who really are just ignorant.

You sound almost hostile, but you never addressed what he actually said. Do you not think we'll all be better off if people who don't understand the consequences of the policies advocated by candidates didn't vote?


RE: Yeah well
By freeagle on 5/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah well
By Spuke on 5/8/2009 6:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
Voters vote the party line even though there's a ton of independents. Uninformed are those that continue the status quo of voting the Dem/Repub party line.


RE: Yeah well
By fatedtodie on 5/7/2009 3:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you are refering to the people that voted for him, or his approval rating you are missing a fundemental statistic.

NOT EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN AMERICA VOTED. So yes 53 % of whatever random sampling you are whining about are hippies...


RE: Yeah well
By pequin06 on 5/7/2009 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
While Obama may have a higher IQ than Bush


That can be debated. Barry does have the cheerleading squad that hides almost every gaffe he makes or what gets shown is so played down.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 3:52:23 PM , Rating: 3
...I'm pretty sure that if you had a fill-in-the-blank form like:

_______________ has a higher IQ than Bush

...it would be valid no matter what you put in the blank.


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2009 4:44:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...I'm pretty sure that if you had a fill-in-the-blank form like:

_______________ has a higher IQ than Bush

...it would be valid no matter what you put in the blank.


what if I put in "No man, woman, or child alive today"?


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 5:03:31 PM , Rating: 3
OK, except for that one...


RE: Yeah well
By 67STANG on 5/8/2009 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
Even that is debatable.

"Fool me can't get fooled again."


RE: Yeah well
By elgoliath on 5/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah well
By freeagle on 5/7/2009 7:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'd put there Bush and let you figure out which one is a plant and which one a president


RE: Yeah well
By web2dot0 on 5/8/2009 1:33:53 PM , Rating: 1
Bush have made so many gaffes that people lost track the count buddy .... he's an absolute embarrassment.

Obama is not perfect, and no one should be.

The republicans are so desperate now that they are criticizing the kind of mustard to likes and how he's smiling too much. Big gaffes huh?

Unless you are delusional, it's pretty obvious that Obama is extremely smart. It doesn't mean he's going to be a great president at the end, but at least the foundation is there.

You can't teach a joe blow to be the next Babe Ruth, no matter what they do. Doesn't that remind you of Bush? That guy doesn't even speak properly English and he's the president? That's just crazy.

Just because you don't like his policies doesn't mean he's not intelligent. Get over it. He's smart and that's that.


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 1:48:28 PM , Rating: 3
Obama is an empty suit that is good at reading a teleprompter. Take away the scrolling words and he's an idiot, you have to look past the edited clips, and cherry picked eloquently spoken nonsense that the leftists at CNN/MSNBC put out for everyone to see.

If he's speaking and he looks left, then right, then left, then right, and never straight ahead he's just reading from the teleprompter. Get him in a situation where he has to explain his ideas without the teleprompter and the whole facade breaks down into a string of half baked incomplete thoughts and an "uh" fest.


RE: Yeah well
By Spuke on 5/8/2009 6:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
whole facade breaks down into a string of half baked incomplete thoughts and an "uh" fest.

1. Who cares
2. Which Republican would you suggest we vote in?
3. What Republican or Democrat has done anything but continue what was put in place before them?


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 6:45:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. Who cares


Anyone that is sick of people practically worshiping this guy as an infalible messiah... incedently the same group that hated bush because "he couldn't finish a sentence without screwing it up".

quote:
2. Which Republican would you suggest we vote in?


How about we vote in a Libertarian or random small business owner instead instead.

quote:
3. What Republican or Democrat has done anything but continue what was put in place before them?


Exactly the reason I answered question 2 the way I did.


RE: Yeah well
By Steve1981 on 5/8/2009 1:59:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That guy doesn't even speak properly English and he's the president?


Irony at its finest.

I won't claim that Mr. Obama is a complete moron; he's not. However, I suspect he's not as smart as he thinks he is, or at least as smart as he bills himself to be. That may turn out to be just as bad for his political career, and this country, as him being a complete numskull.


RE: Yeah well
By captainpierce on 5/8/2009 3:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that Bush was a crappy president who didn't understand his own rhetoric.

Obama is smart and intelligent when it comes to using rhetoric and sound bites. It's what got him elected. But he is intellectually lazy in his arguments. He constantly sets up straw men that can easily be knocked down and makes brazenly stupid remarks. "I inherited the deficit" "All that extra spending wasn't me it was the Republicans"

Number one, you were in Congress for two years and you could've voted against some of that extra spending. You did not. Number two, you did in fact inherit a deficit. And your first order of business would be to... increase it even more. Such brazen disregard for his own words is completely idiotic.


RE: Yeah well
By pequin06 on 5/8/2009 4:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama is not perfect, and no one should be.

Ah, I see, when someone has a "D" for party affiliation, no one is perfect. They're trying.

quote:
Unless you are delusional, it's pretty obvious that Obama is extremely smart. It doesn't mean he's going to be a great president at the end, but at least the foundation is there.


quote:
Just because you don't like his policies doesn't mean he's not intelligent. Get over it. He's smart and that's that.


You being sarcastic or is that the kool aid talking?
On a gaffe ratio, Obama and Biden are fighting for first place.


RE: Yeah well
By phxfreddy on 5/7/2009 4:06:31 PM , Rating: 1
Bush was no Einstein but he is Tesla compared to the child president Obama.

Really ...hear me now ....believe me later. This guys going to really auger in. He's doing encyclopedia britanica in a Wikipedia world!


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 4:12:16 PM , Rating: 1
XD

...you get back to us in 4 years, and let us know how that worked out for you.


RE: Yeah well
By bupkus on 5/7/2009 5:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.


RE: Yeah well
By Laereom on 5/7/2009 8:38:45 PM , Rating: 1
Now, I'm a young'n, and I hardly understood the effects of policy when I was in my teenage years, but I recently went back and read speeches by Dubbya about things like home ownership, economic growth, etc.

He was about as retarded about that as Obama is about biofuels and health care. Pressuring congress to lower lending standards so first time buyers with unproven credit could be approved easier, lowering down payment requirements, working with FNM to provide almost a trillion dollars worth of capital to be lent to said first time buyers... I'm not sure I can call that Tesla-level intelligence, even compared to The Messaiah.


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2009 4:40:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
While Obama may have a higher IQ than Bush, he definitely strikes me as a more inept president because he really has no clue what he believes in.


Sure he does... It's whatever the teleprompter tells him to say.


RE: Yeah well
By Spuke on 5/7/2009 6:06:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sure he does... It's whatever the teleprompter tells him to say.
Obviously, Bush didn't use his.


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 12:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
yeah and bush bumbling over his words sounds about 8x smarter than obama trying to shoot from the hip.


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 12:27:24 AM , Rating: 4
check it out if you don't believe me:

Obama trying to talk with no teleprompter...

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


RE: Yeah well
By chick0n on 5/7/2009 1:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
This is another Example of "Politicians" dont know $hit about science.

Corn-based Ethanol is nothing but failure. Even it cost the same as regular gasoline I still wouldn't buy it. Energy volume is simply too low. you have to "re-fuel" WAY more often, it creates a lot of green house gas just to create them. and so and so ...


RE: Yeah well
By Alexstarfire on 5/8/2009 12:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
Only the way we are making it now. We really just need to funnel more money into research, not into subsidies and building new factories in an attempt to reduce the price of ethanol. That's a piss poor way of thinking.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 1:42:12 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed, although I would add...

Ethanol is not that really great a racing fuel - less energy density than gas. Methanol is way more better.

And while diesel from algae I think is fine, I also would like to know what the hell happened to diesel from poultry-processing waste. And is there anything viable that can be done with ditchweed, or other existing waste products or offal?

Absolutely agree that growing corn, or any other dedicated crop (I'm looking at you, switchgrass), is a montrously bad idea that not only depletes food reserves, it drives up cost, increases human suffering in areas where people are already starving, and it contributes to the degradation of our environment (things like clearing more rainforest to grow some dedicated crop to make ethanol). Not to mention highly questionable energy equity (energy to produce vs. energy you get from the fuel).

I am 100% for biofuels when made in an economically and environmentally sane manner. The next smug bastard that talks about running his car on E85 is gonna get a punch in the face.


RE: Yeah well
By tastyratz on 5/7/2009 3:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
But but but they make a hummer h2 that can run e85, thank god they are doing their part for the environment!
[/sarcasm]

Key word is cheap.

Methanol is great for a true track racing fuel. e85 is a cheap way to run 100 octane on your street rod around town, and its far less corrosive in comparison. It is also becoming much easier to get your hands on at local stations. Meth isn't really viable for much other than dedicated track driving, or small supplemental injections.

Also, I don't think the plan was to plow down rainforests to grow weeds, it just adds bias to the argument. There are plenty of viable locations for switchgrass growth that wont involve killing babies, maiming dolphins, or cutting down the rainforest.

I completely agree with you on the rest. Gasoline hybrids supplement the existing majority fleet, but diesel still carries quite the stigma here in the usa - nevermind biodiesel.

I think funding should go towards advertising campaigns that promote the benefits to diesel. There really should be more new diesel cars sold now since they have come so far.

We can try to get a diesel/biodiesel mix mandate going here as well, just like we push with ethanol instead of mbte in our gas supplies (god do I miss my mbte)


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 3:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure that your chemistry works out - I don't think it's possible to have a fuel that's 85% ethanol work out to 100 octane. The reason it's not 100% ethanol is that it takes 15% real gas to get it to an octane rating that's acceptable to a modern engine - like 87.

If you wanted an ethanol-based fuel to be 100 octane, and I'm totally guessing here, it'd have to be like "E50" - maybe 50% ethanol and 50% 120 octane gas.

As for methanol, I would in no way advocate it for anything other than racing use. Too expensive, too volitle, etc.

If switchgrass can be easily commercially cultivated from existing wild areas that can't be used for food production, then maybe that changes the equation on that one. That isn't the impression that I get though. If it's a perennial (I don't even know...), then maybe if we just planted it along all our highways, it could be the "ditchweed" I referred to...issues then being the transport of it from roadside to a finite number of conversion plants.

It's all so much fun. Still want to know what happened with the fuel-from-turkey-leftovers though that I read about several years ago...sounded very promising.


RE: Yeah well
By MrPeabody on 5/7/2009 4:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Turkey guts? I think what you're looking for is Thermal Depolymerization. Last I heard, Changing World Technologies only ever got that one plant working in Carthage. I think CWT tried for an IPO at one point and failed. They're probably bankrupt by now.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/9/2009 11:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think that is them. Their website is still up, but the last news item they posted is a year old...


RE: Yeah well
By tastyratz on 5/7/2009 4:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
That link should break it down a bit. Ethanol is actually very high octane, so e85 ends up around 100-105 depending on where you get it. That makes for track fuel in a street car that's not a $3 a gallon premium over 93, a blessing if you ask me.

Switchgrass also is perennial, and grows well naturally in some rougher climates in the usa/canada.

I never heard anything about the turkey fuel, but you inspired a google. Looks like turkey guts were 40 bux a ton, and 1 ton made 2 barrels of oil. it also didn't qualify for any biofuel subsidization. It costs them $80 a barrel to produce at their cost, not so competitive to regular diesel.

I actually think warmer climates should be required to put a very mild qty of vegetable oil in their diesel tanks.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
OK, well then I am confused. I don't understand how ethanol, which has a much lower (15-20% IIRC) energy density than gasoline can have a higher octane rating. Those two points would seem to be at direct opposition.


RE: Yeah well
By bobsmith1492 on 5/7/2009 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 3
Octane isn't energy density. Energy density is the amount of calories per unit of volume or mass.

Higher octane fuel requires higher amounts of pressure and heat to combust. So, with higher octane fuel like diesel, you can increase the compression ratio in your engine resulting in more power and a more efficient thermodynamic process. That's why diesels are so efficient (higher "equivalent octane," that is, capable of more compression, and higher energy density - http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8038293)

So, ethanol could have less energy density but a higher octane; then, by increasing the compression ratio, you could compensate for SOME of the net loss of energy. Unfortunately, if your engine has to run on both gas AND ethanol, or both interchangeable, it would have to be smart enough to ramp up the compression if it knew it was running on ethanol otherwise the benefit would not be exploited.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 5:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and in fact, IIRC "octane" is a specific hydrocarbon molecule...as is "cetane" which is used as a metric for diesel. So, I'm going to guess that ethanol doesn't have any "octane" at all, but rather you get some kind of a performance rating for it...


RE: Yeah well
By tastyratz on 5/7/2009 7:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Octane is a measurement, generally dictated by chain length in a hydrocarbon as well as additives. The longer the chain, the harder to break down (think whole grains vs potato) There are several standards of ways to measure it, but its usually r, m, or r+m.
Ethanol is harder to burn with a complex chain, so it takes more pressure. More pressure means exploitable for high performance forced induction or high compression engines. Think how sports cars take premium fuel - that's why.

The difference with Ethanol however is also in its Stoichiometric point. This is approximately 9:1 vs 14.7:1 parts fuel to air (methanol is 6.4:1!!). This results in using significantly more fuel, but helps compensate for the lack of energy density (since you need almost twice as much fuel in the same space)

it is also a reason why you use so much more fuel - the same combustion consumes significantly more volume by nature.
More air + more fuel = more power. This extra octane allows you to stuff more in the cylinder without causing detonation OR preignition (BIG problem) Basically in a turbo car you can usually run more boost on race gas than you can with regular gas without changing your fuel map.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 8:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I looked it up...octane is a molecule C8H18 (sorry...no subscript). It's not a measurement - when you see an octane rating on the pump, it's a measurement of how much octane per volume there is in that gas. And yes, frequntly there is a discrepency between Reseach octane measurements and Motor octane measurements, so they get averaged (R+M/2).

Being a specific molecule of hydrocarbons, I am quite sure that ethanol has no octane at all - remember, you can drink ethanol, but I really don't recommend drinking gasoline. Somebody someplace is doing some kind of a "conversion" from the potential energy of ethanol to octane to come up with some kind of rating.


RE: Yeah well
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
Way more better eh? :)

Yeah ethanol has low energy density. Just means you need bigger injectors. And I don't think you can pull up to a pump for methanol in many places though. But I agree.

Many people use methanol injection with their supercharger setups to cool intake temps.


RE: Yeah well
By inperfectdarkness on 5/8/2009 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
not quite. methanol isn't nearly as user friendly & as capable of "fringe benefits" as ethanol (burn characteristics, fuel charge temp moderation, etc).

the chief mechanic at my favorite shop swears up and down that e85 is a better fuel that c16 (116 octane). burns more completely & uniformly, handles boost better, etc. he's been running e85 in his 750hp daily driver (3.0L, twin turbo) for almost 2 years now.

there is a LOT of misinformation out there spread around by pundits, not wrench monkeys. i could spend the better part of a day explaining why the "brainacs" on here are usually so totally wrong when it comes to alternatives fuels--but you have already made up your minds to believe the hype b.s. rather than cold, hard facts.

p.s.

switching crops to ethanol production...only helps eliminate the government subsidization of our agriculture; where we pay people for their crops because we have too much surplus.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/9/2009 11:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
...I'm not sure I buy a number of things in there...such as a 750HP "daily driver" - I'm gonna guess that you'd have to be running something ridiculous like a 15:1 compression ratio and 30 pounds of boost or something to get to those levels...daily driver indeed.

But this really takes the cake:
quote:
switching crops to ethanol production...only helps eliminate the government subsidization of our agriculture; where we pay people for their crops because we have too much surplus.


You might want to think a bit about that. Not only about how much "surplus" we have, but also about the subsidies that you think aren't being paid to underwrite the ethanol-from-corn industry.


RE: Yeah well
By inperfectdarkness on 5/10/2009 9:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.3si.org/forum/f1/745awhp-640awtq-stock-...

care to open your mouth again?

i never said subsidies weren't being paid to ethanol producers. if anything...it's the exact same money that they'd be getting to sit on their current crops.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/11/2009 2:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. Look at his freaking mod list...running 32psi boost too. If he is driving that thing as a daily driver, he's a loon.


RE: Yeah well
By inperfectdarkness on 5/12/2009 6:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
chris is far from a loon. he's one of the only guys i'd actually trust to be competent with 700+ hp on the street.

the point is...he's doing it. he runs ethanol. you can sit and benchrace all you want--but it doesn't change the truth. he is one of a select handfull of people who can speak expertly to the bleeding-edge performance characteristics of ethanol vs. race gasoline. ethanol burns more even, cools the charge better--and is quite frankly a hands down winner if you factor in the price of fuel.

you should go back and do more research. your 4-cylinder ford proves nothing about performance.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/13/2009 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how you got lost here...I've only been making one point in this whole discussion, and it's about using a bleeding-edge motor for your daily driver. That motor has a very finite amount of life in it, and to use it up driving back and forth to work is lunacy.

Where the $#%^ did you come up with a 4-cylinder Ford? It's like you're fabricating some argument to justify throwing insults around...maybe you should switch to decaf.


RE: Yeah well
By sgw2n5 on 5/7/2009 1:46:17 PM , Rating: 4
Ethanol makes a terrific fuel (though it doesn't have the energy density of diesel)... so long as it can be made economically and engines are designed and optimized to burn it instead of gasoline.

The problem with ETOH right now, is that we can't make it economically. As for the performance of the product itself, it handily beats any battery technology currently available.


RE: Yeah well
By zinfamous on 5/7/2009 1:58:26 PM , Rating: 4
Ethanol is fine.

Corn-based ethanol is not fine. Most farmers don't want to grow "Weeds" on their land, aka switchgrass, so their lobby fights for higher prices on their corn as it provides more security in the event that the ethanol experiment crashes. Of course, this means food prices are higher.

farmers happy, lobbyists happy...no one else, including environment, happy. switchgrass, in terms of net energy gain is one of the few options that makes sense with ethanol.

corn is a travesty, and that NEVER should have happened.


RE: Yeah well
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 5/7/2009 3:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
Corn is a good starting point. The only developed ethanol producing technology is based on corn and other food crops. (for producing whiskey and other spirits)

Corn will never make economic sense as a ethanol source, it is simply a stopgap measure until other technologies can be developed.


RE: Yeah well
By deeznuts on 5/7/2009 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
What about sugar cane?

Of course I have no idea if we can even grow sugar cane in the continental US.


RE: Yeah well
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 3:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
All the same problems apply to any dedicated crop grown for fuel...doesn't matter what the actual crop is.


RE: Yeah well
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 4:50:21 PM , Rating: 5
As another said, Brazil has a thriving ethanol industry based of sugar cane that is far better a fuel than corn based ethanol. Ethanol can be imported into this country extremely cheaply but the government banned foreign imports to protect farmers.

So basically their message is "we want ethanol, but not economically viable ethanol".


RE: Yeah well
By bobsmith1492 on 5/7/2009 5:31:10 PM , Rating: 1
The other concern is that increasing demand for Brazilian ethanol by importing it into the US would lead Brazilians to clear-cut more land for growing sugar cane...


RE: Yeah well
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 5:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't that their choice?

Another example of the government deciding whats better for people and the environment.

If Brazil wants to clear cut their whole country, that's their choice. Its not our fault if we create a demand for a product and they choose to meet that demand by cutting down their rain forest.

Wait sorry. Forgot. American's are devil Bobby.


RE: Yeah well
By E85Prices on 5/7/2009 9:35:37 PM , Rating: 5
Actually the Brazil Amazon deforestation because of ethnaol is just typical proaganda that keeps geting repeated.

The facts are Brazilian deforestation has actually dropped that past 5 years during the ethanol "boom"
Deforestation Figures for Brazil

Year Deforestation
[sq mi] Deforestation
[sq km] Change
[%]
1988 8,127 21,050
1989 6,861 17,770 -16%
1990 5,301 13,730 -23%
1991 4,259 11,030 -20%
1992 5,323 13,786 25%
1993 5,751 14,896 8%
1994 5,751 14,896 0%
1995 11,220 29,059 95%
1996 7,012 18,161 -38%
1997 5,107 13,227 -27%
1998 6,712 17,383 31%
1999 6,664 17,259 -1%
2000 7,037 18,226 6%
2001 7,014 18,165 0%
2002 8,260 21,394 17%
2003 9,748 25,247 19%
2004 10,588 27,423 9%
2005 7,276 18,846 -31%
2006 5,447 14,109 -49%
2007 4,453 11,532 -47%
2008 4,621 11,968 -47%

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

And the MAIN cause is from raising Cattle? are you all going to stop eating beef because of REAL defoestation caused by grassing Cattle ?

DEFORESTATION IN BRAZIL: 60-70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon results from cattle ranches while the rest mostly results from small-scale subsistence agriculture. Despite the widespread press attention, large-scale farming (i.e. soybeans) currently contributes relatively little to total deforestation in the Amazon. Most soybean cultivation takes place outside the rainforest in the neighboring cerrado grassland ecosystem and in areas that have already been cleared. Logging results in forest degradation but rarely direct deforestation. However, studies have showed a close correlation between logging and future clearing for settlement and farming.

As far as all these other "ideas" for fuel.. The reality is anyone can go right ahead and start investing and bring them to market..Go right ahead.

Lets quit looking for and having wet dreams about a holy grail of a fuel and get back to reality..

The United states import 68% of of the Oil we use.. it's insane..and not in the interest of our National Security. We already have subsidzed the Oil Companies and OPEC to the tune of trillions of dollars and blood to protect "their" oil interest.

Yes Corn ethnaol is not perfect..but corn ethanol as another posted already pointed out is just a stepping stone to advanced ethnaol ..Coskata has aprocess that can make ethanol from everything form corn stalks to industrial waste and even Tires !

Thast process is already working in Pilot plant and will be commercialy available in just a couple years.There are adozen alterntive processes already working to mka eethanol out of about everything imaginable ..that's good we are geting there and corn ethanol is volume bridge to that destination.

The relaities are despite the "talk" about all these otehr greta solutions like electric cars and hydrogen vehicles..the reality is ..it's all talk

Corn ethnaol is the ONLY alternative fuel thta is actually making any contribution at all to leading us to lowering our dependence on foriegn oil, enhancing our security , providing hundred of thousands of jobs and keeping hundred of billiosn $$$$ here in the United Sttaes instead of sending to build towwers in Dubi , Palaces in Saudia Arabia and nuclear weapons in Iran and the trickle donw money to ourt right terrosist organizations like Al Queda..you all remeber thos ewonderful folks right ..

Corn ethnaol is not perfect but it is far better than the alternative ..

We are already produing nearly 10 billion gallons now ..and food prices have fallen ..interesting, wonder why that is .. could it be that there never was a shortage of corn ? Last year after we feed the World , Feed the United states , Feed Ethanol we had 1.7 Billion bushles of corn still left over .

The only reason the price of corn ran up was because of speuclators not any real shoratge of corn..Market makers , gamblers in the Commodities Market.. After they cashed in corn fell from $7 to 4 a bushel (56 lbs)
, isnt that freaking amazing..you can go out and buy 56 lbs of corn from your Local Farmer for $4..

Of course you'd be embarresed though ..as well we all should be .

As far as the vehilces..again as others were mentioing one of the main resons for loss of MPG is that Flex fuel vehicles are just that flexfuel..they are optimised for gasolien but cannrunon either fuel. We wont see "real" e86 vehicles ..or higher blend engines until ethnaol has a larger portion of the fuel market...but make no mistake once enough ethanol is on the market and people are bithcing about MPGs(rightfully so if E85 isnt priced less than the mpg they are losing )we will see "real" ethnaol optimised engines (basically just higher compression..not a big deal)

So have your debate ..but at least consider the variables instead of just propaganda funded by ..well ..that should be obvious. Ethnaol as E85 is the alterntive fuel that is giving Oil any competition at all..think about.. that Oil has dictated for a century now..you can have our Gasoline or our Gasoline..!

Again while all the other alternatives are "talking" ..Ethanol is actually bringing competiton right to the pump..and keep in mind that gives YOU the consumer the POWER of choice .. something you havent had in a hundred years.

Dan McCullough
E85Prices.com

2000 E85 Statins in the United States spread out across 1435 Cities in 47 States


RE: Yeah well
By Alexstarfire on 5/8/2009 1:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't need the stalk and all the other crap that comes with it before the corn actually reaches the shelves. Processing costs more money then anything else.


RE: Yeah well
By marvdmartian on 5/7/2009 3:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much how I feel. Alternative fuel/energy is a great idea, getting this country off the OPEC teat is even better, but doing it with corn based ethanol and bio diesel is just not going to work!

Bio-diesel is so easy for the suppliers to screw up (believe me.....the facility where I work is having to deal with a bad batch that we got back in February, and had to be taken back by the supplier, who also was held responsible to clean the fuel tank & system before being given another chance to give us some quality product..... pain in the butt, for sure!), and isn't as viable up north during the winter months, without extra efforts to keep it from jelling.

E85 is a joke, with 2/3 the energy at the same price as gasoline. We use it in my work truck, which is rated for ~14-15 mpg city.....and gets maybe 10mpg with E85!! Really bad idea, these flex fuel vehicles, imho.


RE: Yeah well
By superflex on 5/7/2009 2:18:23 PM , Rating: 3
As soon as he converts his presidential motorcade fleet, the two Air Force One 747's, the three Marine One helicoptors, and the C-147 Starlifter to biofuel, I'll follow.
Otherwise, like Fit said, he needs to shut the fuck up and quit smoking that fairy dust.


RE: Yeah well
By phxfreddy on 5/7/2009 4:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Quite unrealistic to think a lefty will stop smoking fairy dust. If they run out of fairy dust they'll just start in on their cheek rouge.


RE: Yeah well
By GotDiesel on 5/7/2009 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
DIESEL DIESEL...they need to promote diesel cars and bio diesel like europe

.. my jetta tdi returns 50 mpg average at 75 mph, suck that you gas guzzlers..

ethanol sux ass...


RE: Yeah well
By Spuke on 5/7/2009 5:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DIESEL DIESEL...they need to promote diesel cars and bio diesel like europe
Too bad it doesn't pass US emissions testing without expensive equipment that just so happens to lower the fuel economy of the diesel engine.


RE: Yeah well
By Starcub on 5/9/2009 2:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
The newer ones do better. The fuel standard for deisel was dramatically improved in '07. The newer engines burn cleaner, quieter, and smoother.


RE: Yeah well
By clovell on 5/7/2009 3:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, Mr. Obama, if we're going to be a leader in the 21st century, we're going to have to quit spending money we don't have on problems that don't exist.

Does nobody realize that one of America's best resources is the aquifer it sits on? Why would we want to strip mine our own land for fuel when there are other alternatives?


RE: Yeah well
By jlips6 on 5/7/2009 4:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm liberal, and democratic, but when I started reading this article, I also joined the yelling at my computer screen party.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen Obama do including that one time he tried to go bowling.


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2009 4:48:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen Obama do including that one time he tried to go bowling


You really haven't been paying attention lately have you?

quote:
I'm liberal, and democratic,


Oh I see, nope I guess not.


RE: Yeah well
By sgw2n5 on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2009 6:13:20 PM , Rating: 5
You leftists seem to think that bush was some kind of tyrannical dictator because he started a war with Iraq, signed the patriot act, and would not federally fund things like stem cell research... and yet at the same time you completely over look Obama's takeover of private organizations like Chrysler, strong arming GM and telling them to get rid of their CEO, halting the trial of the USS Cole bombing mastermind, calling the US Constitution a document of “negative liberties”, and racking up of more debt in his first 100 days than every administration before him combined. Obama is Bush on steroids, both of them lead to the same end, ever growing government control, less and less personal freedom and responsibility.

So, I ask you sgw2n5, have you been paying attention? Because the uninformed ignorant one liner comments you spew all over every political discussion on dailytech sure lead me to conclude otherwise.


RE: Yeah well
By jlips6 on 5/8/2009 11:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
color me unimpressed and unsympathetic.

quote:
You leftists

Which ones? The ones that you joke about with your friends and family? The hippies that you like to single out that follow every trend that comes along? The brainless mass of people who follow everything that the democratic party does?

Leftist, does not mean that I approve everything that Obama does and that I blindly follow whatever I'm told, just like Right-wing does not mean a mildly retarded gun-toting texas hillbilly. Of course, the fact that I am a person and not a figment of your stereotypical image of a leftist nutjob might be hard to wrap your head around. But I encourage you to try.

I find it interesting that you seem to know exactly what I think without ever talking to me. I'll be honest, I don't give a $hit about GM/Chrysler. Do you live in Detroit? By Detroit? Anywhere within 200 miles of the D? I live 45 miles from that city, and every time I go there I think: what a hellhole. The collapse of the auto industry really killed that city, and it used to be beautiful. Forgive me for not caring when they go bankrupt, get taken over by the government, or whatever the hell happens to them.
And by the way? Gm filed for the first stages of bankruptcy and they were payed billions of dollars by the federal government. The government didn't so much socialize the company as they did buy the company as an investment against further degradation of the economy. But of course, buying and selling companies is what socialism is all about right? You seem to be mad because it's the government that's doing the buying and selling. Well, tell me where it says the government isn't allowed to do that in the constitution, and I'll side with you. Until then, I'll still remain happy with my own opinions thanks.

Calling the constitution a document of negative liberties, well, I can't imagine why he would say that. After all, the constitution flat out states that the government must do certain things to it's people, like give them healthcare and give grants. Oh wait, that means positive liberties. I guess that you just choose to misinterpret the phrase to better suit your views, or you don't know what it means. Either way, it's not a good argument.

So they halted the trial of the mastermind behind the Cole Bombing eh? Man, what a shame. What a shame that Obama closed Guantanamo bay and halted the unconstitutional court process that was convicting him. He had already been sentenced to death by a Yemeni court. In that event, he should be killed, not kept under American jurisdiction and tortured. What a shame. I hope they execute him for what he did, but I have no idea what's actually going to happen to him, and all those other detainee's. That's a problem, but not as much of a problem as sacrificing

And as far as racking up a big debt goes? Much of this debt is caused by temporary spending to increase income in the long run. Also known as an investment. But of course, I don't have a degree in economics. Maybe spending money with an expected higher return isn't the right way to make money. Maybe the right way to get more money is let the country fester until something good happens. I mean, something good has to happen eventually right?

Jeez. I've wasted an entire page talking about crap that I didn't even want to talk about to because someone doesn't think that I choose my views based on my self education rather than mindless media bull$hit or that I just do whatever my party does. Congrats, you've made me waste my time. Happy now?


RE: Yeah well
By jlips6 on 5/8/2009 11:34:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's a problem, but not as much of a problem as sacrificing


Sorry, I skipped around a lot while writing this, and this bit I forgot to finish. It should be:
That's a problem, but not it's not worth continuing the hypocritical and shameful events that took place in Guantanamo to provide a temporary solution for the problem.


RE: Yeah well
By knutjb on 5/7/2009 6:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of potential alternatives out there, the biggest problem is getting Big Brother's fingers out of "picking the winners" regardless of their viability. Corn is my argument. It started with Nixon trying to save farmers so they created programs for corn and have come up with a thousand ways to skin a cat with corn. High fructose corn syrup, ethanol, major source for animal feed to name a few pushed by Archer Daniels Midland ADM. Research for plant survival good, research on how to use a specific plant over alternatives bad. Your tax dollars at work.

Diesel has a bad name in the US because of all the crappy cars in the late 70s, see many Olds diesels on the road? Also the well built euro diesels were not a great fit for US highways, great in the city dangerous on the freeways since they couldn't get out of their own way and cyclists accelerated faster at traffic lights. I wouldn't mind bio diesel but un-blended bio doesn't work too well below 10 degrees F. That should be surmountable but let the market do it, not the nanny state we are experiencing now.


RE: Yeah well
By Pneumothorax on 5/7/2009 6:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
Have you seen the BMW 335d diesel? Almost as much performance as the 335i turbo gasser with the fuel economy of a Honda Civic. 400+ lb/ft torque! That's progress. Doesn't seem to be selling to well though. (mostly due to price) Honda was going to release a 40+MPG Acura TSX, but low gas prices killed it... arghh!


RE: Yeah well
By knutjb on 5/8/2009 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't see a BMW diesel in the late 70s early 80s it was only Mercedes, Peugeot, VW or GM products and they were either unreliable the Peugeot & GM or very slow, all of them, even the Merc 300TD. They were noisy, smelly and you could follow the smoke trail for a few miles. That is a big reason diesels didn't catch on in cars, just in trucks. Also California's pollution standards along with the Feds put a huge hurdle for diesel cars, trucks had different standards since they were used in 3/4 & 1 ton trucks which are classified as commercial vehicles. Diesels today are much better but I don't think too many families will be buying a BMW right now because of price, not quality or performance. I wish Jaguar would bring over it's diesel too, though same problem as the BMW.


RE: Yeah well
By Spuke on 5/8/2009 5:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almost as much performance as the 335i turbo
Performance is actually down quite a bit from the 335i.

335i sedan
0-60 mph: 4.8 sec
1/4 mile: 13.5 sec @ 106 mph

335d sedan (no coupe in the US)
0-60 mph: 5.7 sec
1/4 mile: 14.2 sec @ 100 mph

That, my friend, is a significant difference in performance. We're talking at least 10 car lengths, probably more.


RE: Yeah well
By FaceMaster on 5/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah well
By piroroadkill on 5/7/2009 8:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, Ethanol is a dead end.


RE: Yeah well
By eddieroolz on 5/7/2009 9:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
I must agree as well, but for slightly different reasons.

Using ethanol to fuel cars is just not right. It takes a huge amount of corn to just make just a litre of gas.

It would take about the size of Brazil to make enough gas to replace 85% of gas consumption for the US. That's not feasible at all.

Obama is not shaping up to be what was promised. He sometime doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.


RE: Yeah well
By Steve Guilliot on 5/8/2009 1:57:00 AM , Rating: 1
Oh yay, DT shows again how dominated it is by a handful of extreme right wing nuts. Why? Because all the reasonable folks (and I don't mean democratic or leftists by that) see this place as pretty much hopeless and fled to more rational locales.

Now it's just a circle jerk for bombastic know-it-alls.


RE: Yeah well
By superflex on 5/8/2009 10:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
Please close the door on your way out.


RE: Yeah well
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 5:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh yay, DT shows again how dominated it is by a handful of extreme right wing nuts. Why?


Right wing nuts? Where? I haven't seen any "right wing nuts" around here what are you talking about? :)

quote:
Because all the reasonable folks (and I don't mean democratic or leftists by that) see this place as pretty much hopeless and fled to more rational locales.


No, they've simply shown their true colors. There are a lot of smart people that frequent this site and if you take a postition on a controversial topic and cant defend it you're going to get torn to pieces. So saying the heck with it and leaving because you cant defend your views really only shows that you don't have a leg to stand on.

If you disagree with someone make a logical (non emotional) case for your idea, back it up with a source asked to do so, and people will respect you... if you can't then you'll probably end up looking like a fool and be mocked for it.


RE: Yeah well
By Nighteye2 on 5/8/2009 1:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's not worthless. But the focus should be on 2nd generation biofuels, made from the inedible parts of crops. Biofuels should not be made from food.


RE: Yeah well
By joos2000 on 5/11/2009 4:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, ethanol as an energy source is a false echonomy. Biodiesel, ie vegetable oil is the only real sollution that works, xonsidering our current distribution of fuel, infrastructure and presents the least cost to the automotive sector (the engines allready exist).

Bio-diesel is, so far, the best sollution until we get a viable all electric transport sollution.


Hydrogen
By poundsmack on 5/7/2009 3:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why hydrogen power isn't poised to become the dominant alternative fuel source is beyond me... it just seems to make much more sense on a sustainability factor.




RE: Hydrogen
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because we can't product it in quantities sufficient for even a single area. Just like ethanol. And also similar to ethanol, it takes a large amount of energy to produce and gives very little energy in return (although ethanol is better than hydrogen).


RE: Hydrogen
By werepossum on 5/7/2009 6:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is a great fuel that you can make at home for roughly the equivalent of $7.50 per gallon plus a few grand for the equipment; knock yourself out. LOL To be practical large scale would require either a scalable and economical method of producing hydrogen from waste, or a butt load of nuclear power plants. With the Democrats looking to be in power for the next few decades, the latter certainly isn't going to happen, so we're left waiting on a breakthrough that may never come.

Many of the environmentalists do not want alternative energy - they simply want fewer people (specifically, fewer other people) and a lower American standard of living. Witness the fights against CO2 harvesting, wind power, large scale solar evaporative plants, and any other practical alternative energy or CO2 abatement that doesn't specifically lower our standard of living. In my opinion this is due to the liberal feeling that "it's just not fair Americans should have so much and consume so much."

President Obama is well on his way toward fixing this inequity. Just wait for cap & trade.


RE: Hydrogen
By lightfoot on 5/7/2009 7:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Because Hydrogen is a pollutant. When released into the atmosphere it is explosive, and when burned in an engine it creates a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Also it is very difficult to store in any significant quantity, and is extremely expensive to produce.

What we need is an engine that can run on Hope and Change.


RE: Hydrogen
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2009 12:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually engines that run on hydrogen produce water. They don't emit hydrogen.


RE: Hydrogen
By superflex on 5/8/2009 10:13:58 AM , Rating: 3
I think he was refering to the fact that water vapor is the number 1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but since Al Gore hasn't figured a way to tax water vapor, CO2 is the evil gas of the decade.


RE: Hydrogen
By Starcub on 5/9/2009 3:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Water vapor also causes cloud formation which absorbs solar energy, causes rain fall, stems desertification, is not a polutant, etc...

From the EPA report here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloa...

"Overall, the most abundant and dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Water vapor is neither long-lived nor well mixed in the atmosphere, varying spatially from 0 to 2 percent (IPCC 1996). In addition, atmospheric water can exist in several physical states including gaseous, liquid, and solid. Human activities are not believed to affect directly the average global concentration of water vapor, but, the radiative forcing produced by the increased concentrations of other greenhouse gases may indirectly affect the hydrologic cycle. While a warmer atmosphere has an increased water holding capacity, increased concentrations of water vapor affects the formation of clouds, which can both absorb and reflect solar and terrestrial radiation. Aircraft contrails, which consist of water vapor and other aircraft emittants, are similar to clouds in their radiative
forcing effects".

Any contribution man makes in this regard would be negligible on the whole. Furthermore, there would likely be benefits to be gained to offset reduced rainfall produced by global warming in the tradational crop growing areas of the world.


RE: Hydrogen
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2009 11:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because Hydrogen is a pollutant. When released into the atmosphere it is explosive, and when burned in an engine it creates a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.


unapologetic sarcasm I love it.


It's the economy - stupid !
By Beenthere on 5/7/2009 1:22:52 PM , Rating: 1
Auto sales worldwide have dropped close to 50% because we are in a worldwide economic depression that will last years.

By their own admission, cellulosic ethanol is not cost effective and probably won't be for at least 10-15 years. Vehicles that run on ethanol also consume much more fuel than when these engines are run on gas so it's all bad with ethanol - which is nothing but a scam and a limited few are profiting from the scam.




RE: It's the economy - stupid !
By sgw2n5 on 5/7/2009 1:59:52 PM , Rating: 3
Again, ethanol makes a wonderful fuel if the engine is optimized for it. Though 10kg of etoh won't take you as far as 10kg of diesel or gasoline, it will take you 1000x further than 10kg of even the most efficient batteries currently available.

It is clean burning, easily adapted to fit our current gasoline infrastructure, safe to handle, fun at parties.

What would you rather the eventual replacement for gasoline to be?


RE: It's the economy - stupid !
By Steve1981 on 5/7/2009 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What would you rather the eventual replacement for gasoline to be?


Cheese. All we need to do is build a bridge to the Moon and we'll have a practically unlimited supply.

The algae based bio-diesel that FIT mentions could work too.


RE: It's the economy - stupid !
By Motoman on 5/7/2009 3:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Heh. I'd +1 you for the cheese, but I've already commented in here...


RE: It's the economy - stupid !
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 5:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone is arguing that batteries are better than ethanol. But just because ethanol is better than batteries doesn't make it good.

Yes with a properly designed engine ethanol isn't a bad fuel but as you yourself say, it won't take you as far as the same amount of gas or diesel.

Which is why I'd rather spend my money on algae based diesel. If nothing else, its even easier to produce than ethanol. I don't know all the details but from what I've read, you basically just have to supply the algae with sunlight and water. And the water that isn't used to make the fuel gets recycled back into the system so nothing is wasted.


RE: It's the economy - stupid !
By Starcub on 5/9/2009 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that batteries are better than ethanol. But just because ethanol is better than batteries doesn't make it good.

Ethanol is a fuel, and batteries are an energy storage medium. The statement "Ethanol is better than batteries" doesn't make any sense. You could combine the two tech's to create a hybrid vehicle that would increase overall system efficiency. Qualify your statements.


RE: It's the economy - stupid !
By knutjb on 5/7/09, Rating: 0
funny, Ethanol Hummer
By mforce on 5/7/2009 12:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think maybe the problem is with the cars themselves and while I can understand some people needing such big and fuel guzzling cars I think most could do with something a lot smaller.
That would save a lot of fuel which could be used for something else. In the old days SF authors thought we would be headind to Jupiter by now. Instead here we are fighting for oil to drive big Hummers to help with our ego.
Just my 2 gallons , I mean cents. :)




RE: funny, Ethanol Hummer
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 12:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of need. I agree most people don't NEED a large SUV. But if they want to buy one they should be able to. And they should have to live with that decision as well.


RE: funny, Ethanol Hummer
By alpensiedler on 5/7/2009 1:02:52 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is that it's not just those people (who buy big autos) that have to live with the consequences, every one has to live with them (since we all have to share the petrol resources). Anyway, it's the same old debate of the freedom of one person directly conflicting with the rights/freedom of another person. Like smoking in public. The smoker has the right to smoke, but the person standing next to them also has the right to breathe clean air. It's a catch-22, someone has to lose in the end.


RE: funny, Ethanol Hummer
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 1:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
And what right are people who drive big SUVs violating for those who don't?


RE: funny, Ethanol Hummer
By Steve1981 on 5/7/2009 1:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously, they're infringing on my right to cheap gas. The world's resources belong to everyone man (extra hippie emphasis added).

I think the government should ration out gas. I could live on about five gallons a week, therefore everyone can. That'll teach those fat cat corporate types to buy their Lambos and Bentleys!!!

/sarcasm


RE: funny, Ethanol Hummer
By HostileEffect on 5/7/2009 1:10:56 PM , Rating: 1
Go buy yourself a piece of land with oil under it if you are worried about petrol resources.


Bio-Diesel?
By theoflow on 5/7/2009 1:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
You know, if I won the lottery (New York City) I've always wondered how much it would be to start up a gas station devoted to the usage of used cooking oil to produce diesel.

Have a pipeline go under the East River from Manhattan into Long Island City where there is a ton of unused industrial space. I don't even want to fathom how much cooking oil is used on a daily basis.

Not a big market for it on the consumer side, but for shipping trucks and government trucks, it would be something cool.

I agree that ethanol(corn) is a waste, but we have to satisfy those big farming states. I'm not saying it is right, I'm just saying at this point it is a necessary evil.




RE: Bio-Diesel?
By captainpierce on 5/7/2009 2:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't ethanol one of those failed policies of the past this jack*ss is always lecturing about?


RE: Bio-Diesel?
By lightfoot on 5/7/2009 7:21:15 PM , Rating: 4
No, this is a failed Democratic policy of the past. That means that it will be expanded, subsidized and promoted indefinitely. And it will all be paid for by taxing the snot out of big business and the top 5% of wage earners (those evil people who hired you.)


You can tell he has flunked math/science classes
By kenyee on 5/7/2009 3:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel replacements only make sense if the cost *AND ENERGY* to produce them is *less* then the energy source you're trying to replace.

It's like electric cars...plug them into the magic wall socket, yet no one acknowledges how that electricity was generated. Ditto "ethanol". Ethanol takes a ridiculous amount of energy to produce and isn't very efficient.

This is why we need a technocracy run by engineers instead of idiot politicians (and yes I include Bush in that group)...




By BadAcid on 5/7/2009 4:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's one of the biggest flaws with many "green" policies that I see.
People selling them rarely mention efficiency when it comes to these policies, simply opting out to say "well X produces less carbon emissions that Y" with no mention of "How is X produced vs. Y production, how can carbon emissions be reduced while still running Y, will people adopt X or will Y continue to be cheaper."
Far too much tunnel vision going on, not enough full circle, big picture thinking.

It's also useful to look at who's feeding you the data, could they possibly have a motive for X adoption?


By Laereom on 5/7/2009 8:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
How about we just not have central authority to decide this stuff (engineers will bicker about whose invention gets used, etc) and let the markets decide? Eh? Eh?


By Captain Orgazmo on 5/7/2009 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
From the article: "gasoline well to pump to tailpipe"

I know what Jason is trying to say, but seriously, what is a gasoline well?




My solution...
By cscpianoman on 5/7/2009 6:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hook pipes up to the mouths of every politician. There is enough hot air coming out of those things to power the world, and it's renewable energy too!




Insane in the membrane
By Steve73 on 5/7/2009 8:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we keep feeding ourselves this nonsense of saving energy. We should really be asking ourselves how to create more energy to meet our demands. Saving energy is a scam to enslave the world and a excuse from politicians to control the plebes. Energy crunch equals poor management on behalf of the government.




The RFA CEO is good with words.
By Flail on 5/7/2009 8:09:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen disputes such claims stating, "EPA has reconfirmed the fact that when directly compared to gasoline, ethanol significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.


good thing he put in "when directly compared to gasoline". If he didn't, he'd be blatantly lying -_-.

Any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is easily lost many times over, by the amount of deforestation that goes on to support the extra food crops grown, to be used in ethanol.

They basically destroy areas capable of a much larger ability to store carbon. The end result is that there's much more greenhouse gasses floating around. Really stupid thing to be doing.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki