[OT - US/Canada] E-85

Alan Browne wrote in news:Gdn7g.24
:

I would bet there is another ideal location that hasn't been proposed.
How many acres are they talking about?



I agree, there are a few other places, but they will have some not in my
back yard issues in some places.

It is a 1000 acre tract, and the topography makes it hard to build except
on particular spots, it is to marshy on the bottom land, and some of it is
bluffs.

There is a place nearby (2 Mi. away) that is one of the last refugees of 2
small fish called the Neosho Madtom darter, and the Ozark cavefish. Both
are on the endangered species list. The habitat is upstream from the
location, but questions about subterranean water and runoff issues will
come up, it is just a matter of time.

I am for it, because, for one, I have hunted on the land, and the obvious
places to build, shouldn't really hurt the surroundings, if they build the
road right. I think the biggest fear is them developing the access, and end
up making an industrial complex.

I believe they are studying the financial viability more than the
environmental issues. I am still for it, we need the fuel. We have plenty
of State and Federally owned Forrest in Missouri.

"William Graham" wrote in news:sf-dne0Lgt-
:

Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)


It is medicinal

"Rusty Shakleford" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in news:sf-dne0Lgt-
:

Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)


It is medicinal

Yes, but they can still put it in their gas....Here is a link to Canadian
Ethanol production:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media/newsrel.../200402b_e.htm

William Graham wrote:

"44 US companies currently operate 57 ethanol production plants with a
combined. production capacity of about 2200 MGY" - (A Google find)

Thanks William. You'll be happy to know that that production offsets
3.82 days of annual US oil use, or the equivalent of 28 Middle-East days
of oil supply.

Wow! This is great stuff!

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Rusty Shakleford wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in news:sf-dne0Lgt-
:


Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)



It is medicinal

That's only 80 - 120 proof. Fuel ethanol is 160 - 180 proof. Deadly.

William Graham wrote:


Yes, but they can still put it in their gas....Here is a link to Canadian
Ethanol production:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media/newsrel.../200402b_e.htm

Thanks William. I hadn't found that one. Varennes is less than an
hour's drive from here.


Cheers,
Alan

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Rusty Shakleford wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in news:sf-dne0Lgt-
:


Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)


It is medicinal

That's only 80 - 120 proof. Fuel ethanol is 160 - 180 proof. Deadly.

I've seen (and tasted) 180 proof whiskey....They call it, "everclear". - Too
tough for my liver, but it makes a pretty good mix......The submarine
sailors used to drink it....They used it for torpedo fuel.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

"44 US companies currently operate 57 ethanol production plants with a
combined. production capacity of about 2200 MGY" - (A Google find)

Thanks William. You'll be happy to know that that production offsets 3.82
days of annual US oil use, or the equivalent of 28 Middle-East days of oil
supply.

Wow! This is great stuff!

Cheers,
Alan.

That's more than 1% of our usage already......To me, this is clear
indication that we could get to more than 50% during the next 10 years
without half trying......

Frank ess wrote:

It may come as a shock to you, Bill, but your attribution snip is faulty.

Plus which, a road-going tanker is not a _mass_ distribution method in
this context.

The whole idea of mass distribution is different in the context of
Ethanol. If you use the "oil" model, then it's less efficient. But
it's not oil, so don't use the oil model.

For the midwest it makes sense to have lots of moderate sized ethanol
production plants as there are costs to transport the locally grown
feedstock to the masher/evaporator. So a lot of moderate sized
operations are more efficient than a few large operations. As a
byproduct is livestock feed, then again, best to be close to market.

In any case, I was delighted to see William's other post indicating that
Ethanol production is about 2200 M Gallons per year, equivalent to
nearly 1 month of Middle-East oil imports to the US. This is nearly 4X
higher than I believed it to be.

Cheers,
Alan

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Frank ess wrote:

It may come as a shock to you, Bill, but your attribution snip is faulty.

Plus which, a road-going tanker is not a _mass_ distribution method in
this context.

The whole idea of mass distribution is different in the context of
Ethanol. If you use the "oil" model, then it's less efficient. But it's
not oil, so don't use the oil model.

For the midwest it makes sense to have lots of moderate sized ethanol
production plants as there are costs to transport the locally grown
feedstock to the masher/evaporator. So a lot of moderate sized operations
are more efficient than a few large operations. As a byproduct is
livestock feed, then again, best to be close to market.

In any case, I was delighted to see William's other post indicating that
Ethanol production is about 2200 M Gallons per year, equivalent to nearly
1 month of Middle-East oil imports to the US. This is nearly 4X higher
than I believed it to be.

Cheers,
Alan

Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult, there
is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling can't be done
via pipeline, and then do the final distilling locally......