On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:12:30 -0900, Whata Fool wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:14:08 -0500, "Maxwell" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
. ..
Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
better.

What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

For the US, it reduces oil imports, billions of gallons per
year.
First, when compared to gas none of my statements are negative against
alcohol.

It might, not does and even pushing the implementation to the limits
predictions are it will only be able to take care of the increased
demand for fuels over time.

It will provide the means to do away with farm subsidies,
if only congress has the brains to make it happen.

It might

It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for it,
it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.

Cleaner burning, yes. More power, not a chance. Alcohol only contains
60 of the energy of gas. In Indy they get more power by burning more.
A lot more and under more pressure. They are also running very
expensive engines at very high RPM and expected to last for one race.


It is carbon neutral, as is all animal and human emissions of
CO2.

It could be if the growing chain also used it rather than fossil
fuels.


The Indy use alcohol because of gasoline fire, but check that
out too.

When oil becomes too expensive and in short supply, ethanol
is one of the biofuels that is easy to make.

And expensive although the price is currently hidden in subsidies
rather than showing up at the pump.



There is nothing bad about ethanol, although because it has
an oxygen atom in the molecule, it needs less air, so a bigger tank may
be needed for the same miles per tank.
(Miles Per Gallon is not a criteria for different fuels,
Miles Per Dollar is the important factor).

Time we get done alcohol will be at least as expensive as the highest
price we've seen for gas so far.