MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE

On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:36:36 GMT, wrote:

One of my personal all-time favorites was Rosie O's diatribe against
personal ownership of firearms while collecting some serious coin from
one of the largest US retailers of same.

And they basically went belly-up... Cause and effect? One can only
hope so... I hear that their "recovery plan" was that they would buy
out / merge with Sears... Looks like yet another company to avoid...

--
"Which part of 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' do you not understand?"

On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:10:36 GMT, Jose
wrote:

I think it's 60% less by volume, but it is clean burning.

How much gas does it take to run the farm equipment to generate the corn
in the first place?

It depends on whos figures/studies and results you are willing to
believe. There is a tremendous amount of information out there, in
libraries, text books, and on the Internet and there is less agreement
in it than with the causes of global warming.

"Near as I can tell" it takes the equivalent of one gallon of ethanol
through the growth, harvest, and production cycle to produce roughly
a gallon and a half of product. That is a very small, net energy gain
and far from putting ethanol into a economically competitive position
as an alternative fuel regardless of claims. Also the entire chain is
heavily subsidized along with tax breaks which makes some of the
figures even more suspect.

You can spend hours looking over the results of studies that show
everything from about a 25 to 30% net energy loss to a very large net
energy gain, but nothing about the parameters used in those studies
and the studies mean nothing unless you can see what they took into
consideration. Having raised corn and still owning a small farm which
I rent out, I can say with certainty the study that showed a large net
energy gain had to have left out a lot of items in the cycle that use
a lot of energy. Corn is heavily dependent on growing conditions as
well as herbicides and pesticides. Dry years and wet years make for
lean years. It also takes a lot out of the soil which has to recover
several years before the next crop of corn.

But is it clean burning... wait... I said that before, but it is clean
burning. Actually it'll clean out an engine that's pretty badly
carboned up.

I do think is it a better choice in most cases than MTBE, but
unfortunately not when used in aircraft systems.

In Michigan we have the added problem that they no longer have to
place stickers on the pumps telling what's in the gas. The stickers
only state that the gas meets such and such a standard which may or
may not include ethanol. I believe Michigan has used ethanol from the
"get-go" and not MTBE as we've had Gasohol since the 70's. It took off
in the 70's but a number of the producers went under shortly after the
gas prices went back down. I know of no processes that were turning
in a net energy gain back then.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



Jose

wrote in message
news

One of my personal all-time favorites was Rosie O's diatribe against
personal ownership of firearms while collecting some serious coin from
one of the largest US retailers of same.

Don't forget her armed body guards that she somehow forgot to mention.


TC

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
nk.net...
And the rest of the world would just sit around and watch? If we
unilaterally used nuclear weapons 1st against anyone, the entire world
would be united against us. The top priority of every country would be to
get their own nuclear arsenal to stop any similar attack on them. In
short order, you'd have a nuclear arms race that would dwarf anything
we've ever seen.

It's amazing to me the inability of people to anticipate even the most
obvious secondary effects of what they advocate.

Do you think that same world would retaliate against Iran if they nuked
Israel?

The same world that sits (and sat) by when Israelis' are/were slaughtered?

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?

actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably?
that looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what
you might have wished.

Well, that would adhere to the _dictionary_ version of the word "response".

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed
to
respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?

actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably?
that looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what
you might have wished.

Yep. It was further punctuation of the lack of a creditable response to
the attacks against US citizens. They kept coming at us. Then you get
9-11.

I do not understand why Martin and some others can not see, that doing
nothing only encourages the attacks to continue, and escalate.

Maybe this will clarify it:
http://europundits.blogspot.com/2005...63676789 9582


You want to stop a bully? Punch him in the nose. Keep hurting him, until
the cost to him is too high.

Then hit him again just to be sure.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hotze" wrote

We are so proud of you, really.

Who is the Patron Saint of Lost Causes? I need to know, so we can send
him/her your way, 'cause you are surely a lost cause.

Why you can not see the connection between doing nothing, when men of evil
rise to power, and the outbreak of world wars, is beyond me.

It happened before, and it will-was happening again. Do nothing again
Martin? A very dangerous direction to take, indeed.

Maybe it's because Martin is rooting for/identifies with, the men of evil.

"Cub Driver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 May 2006 07:04:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in order that*
there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.

They were air bursts because the shock wave spread out, maximizing damage.

That's not what Leslie Groves said at the time. Sorry. History is what
is is.

Leslie Groves, huh. Funny, he and Teller have differing views.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens.

And what are corporations? Large groups of people, each with a vote.

I'm always amused by people who use the word "corporation" in a
perjorative way. There are very few structures in the world more
democratic than a corporation -- and they are by FAR preferable to sole
proprietorships.

Quite so. Even a national corporation has maybe 50,000 votes. Even if the
could get ALL their employees to vote the way the corporation wanted.

The dinky backwater towns that you and I live in has more than that.

If the corporations were our masters, brickbrain Martin needs to explain why
they allow themselves to be litigated against so successfully, even with
virtually no real evidence; that (female sex organ) Erin Brockovich comes
to mind.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-02, Jay Honeck wrote:
Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens.

And what are corporations? Large groups of people, each with a vote.

There's nothing wrong with corporations, per se. However, when they are
used by a minority of people holding proportionately very large amounts
of influence to buy legislation, things are getting rotten.

When there is "legislation to be bough", there's something wrong. After all,
as previously put, they may be 50,000 strong, but that's one small towns
vote.

Maybe because those 50,000 are trying to buy their own legislation and the
pols and bureaucrats are more than happy to play both sides. In such cases,
the bureaucrats are the only, and always, the winners.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO