If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Today ASAAR attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:59:00 -0500, All Things Mopar, who knows neither rhyme nor reason wrote: what means these two FLAs, Dip ****, FLA = Four Letter Acronym please? (an "FLA" is a "TLA", Obviously, what I wrote either went way over your head or you're just simply a dunce and can't figure it out without guidance. Want to try again? You'll have to read slowly, and might need the assistance of a finger or two: nothing you say or do is even remotely over my head, idiot. "Never try to reason with a fool" - Roadsign Oops, too late. By the time I reached the road sign quote at the end of your message, I had already composed the reply. I see you're looking in a mirror, Normal Rockwell style, right now -- ATM, aka Jerry "Never try to reason with a fool" - Roadsign |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:59:44 -0500, All Things Mopar
wrote: Today Roger attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound linguistic utterance what means these two FLAs, please? (an "FLA" is a "TLA", BTW) grin K8RI is my Amateur radio call sign and the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is the national orginization that represents us, or most of us. There are some sharp disagreements on that last one:-)) Thanks, Roger. I don't parlez vous amateur radio so had no clue. Couple of insights into somw my hobbies: http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/tower.htm http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boatanch.htm http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm http://www.rogerhalstead.com/G3_files/GIII_Diary.htm There's lots of other *stuff* incuding links to photos on my home page. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:01:13 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote: "Roger" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 09 May 2006 08:08:56 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote: snip While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost department. Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production increased, economies of scale will continue to reduce the cost. Maybe and maybe not. Production costs should come down, but growing costs are going up. Corn is a "fragile" crop that is extremely sensitive to growing conditions. Corn is also a finite product and market costs are based on current use which is basically all that is produced is used. If we add more demand for corn it means we pay more, or we grow more, but if we grow more it means taking other crops/acreage out of production which again means we pay more. Currently corn is not a high profit crop like Sugar Beets and like sugar beets the fuel concerns are going to be contracting acreage for production. Unfortunately they are contracting for a risky crop. If that contracting covers a large percentage of a particular area and/or a hefty percent of the national production I can see the price of corn easily doubling and that would drive the price of alcohol through the roof. Most of the corn we grow in the US is "field corn" that is used to feed I'm not sure I'd say "most" but I'm only familiar with Michigan farming. Here the vast majority of "field corn" is a "cash crop" that is shelled in the field with the fodder being put back into the ground. We do have some large dairy farms that are exceptions, but they, in general harvest the corn while it is still green as silage. My cousin's boys are running about one and a half square miles but I don't know how many head they are milking. Whether used as "feed stock" or shelled corn, the crop is hard on the land. it requires rotation and time for the land to recover and it's not always cheap to grow with many areas using lots of herbicides and pesticides. As I mentioned it is also a "fragile crop" that depends highly on seasonal growing conditions. With a good season you can have a "bumper" crop, but a wet or dry season can leave the farmer with an expensive loss. Farms that grow the corn for their own use would remain relatively unaffected except for seed price as they consume what they grow rather than using corn as a cash crop. cattle with.....It's relatively cheap to grow, and that's good, because it keeps the price of beef down. Milk too. The cows eat the whole enchilada....Not just the corn itself. Turning the cows out into a freshly picked corn field produced some rather interesting results. You tried to never, ever get behind one especially if you though it was going to cough. They could "paint a wall" six feet up from 12 feet away. All I can say is it's a good thing they didn't sneeze. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On Fri, 12 May 2006 01:39:33 -0500, All Things Mopar
wrote: Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound linguistic utterance Yes, but when the cows fart, do they use a catalytic converter? grin Don't laugh....It's been suggested that the gases released by cows contribute significantly to global warming....As a matter of fact, just vegetation rotting on the jungle floor contributes to global warming, even if there is no forest fire to get rid of it. You know, William, I was talking about this thread to my wife at dinner last night. She heard a lecture at our church from someone who would like to /untangle/ the mis- and dis- information associated with E-85 being negatively energy efficient as well as the mis- and dis-information associated with President Bush's recomendation to explore for oil in the north of Alaska and some other things related to our thirst for fossil fuels. It has always interested me in a black comedy sort of way how environmental extremists will go to any lengths to "save the spotted owl" or some obscure one or two of 35,000+ species of mosquitos, but they are strangely silent on the truly important things dealing with human rights and American freedom. So, now, /cows/ contribute to global warming? Would that be from evaporation of stuff in cow plops as well as gaseous emissions? After long research across a number of sources, I have personally concluded that the global warming threat is real, not imaginary and not alarmist bull****. I would hate to live in a coastal city when the tides come in! That said, I think we should eliminate /all/ sources of pollutants to the ozone layer and all of those other nasty things. My recommendation is to go back to washing our clothes by beating them against rocks at the nearby stream and cooking our means over an open wood fire. Wait! That's bad too! Guess we just have to do an "On The Beach" and get rid of ourselves. (that's sarcasm, son! grin) E-85 is soooooo environmentally friendly. How much rainforest have the Brazilians chopped down to make way for the crops used to make E-85? |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"Roger" wrote in message news On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:01:13 -0700, "William Graham" wrote: "Roger" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 09 May 2006 08:08:56 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote: snip While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost department. Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production increased, economies of scale will continue to reduce the cost. Maybe and maybe not. Production costs should come down, but growing costs are going up. Corn is a "fragile" crop that is extremely sensitive to growing conditions. Corn is also a finite product and market costs are based on current use which is basically all that is produced is used. If we add more demand for corn it means we pay more, or we grow more, but if we grow more it means taking other crops/acreage out of production which again means we pay more. Currently corn is not a high profit crop like Sugar Beets and like sugar beets the fuel concerns are going to be contracting acreage for production. Unfortunately they are contracting for a risky crop. If that contracting covers a large percentage of a particular area and/or a hefty percent of the national production I can see the price of corn easily doubling and that would drive the price of alcohol through the roof. Most of the corn we grow in the US is "field corn" that is used to feed I'm not sure I'd say "most" but I'm only familiar with Michigan farming. Here the vast majority of "field corn" is a "cash crop" that is shelled in the field with the fodder being put back into the ground. We do have some large dairy farms that are exceptions, but they, in general harvest the corn while it is still green as silage. My cousin's boys are running about one and a half square miles but I don't know how many head they are milking. Whether used as "feed stock" or shelled corn, the crop is hard on the land. it requires rotation and time for the land to recover and it's not always cheap to grow with many areas using lots of herbicides and pesticides. As I mentioned it is also a "fragile crop" that depends highly on seasonal growing conditions. With a good season you can have a "bumper" crop, but a wet or dry season can leave the farmer with an expensive loss. Farms that grow the corn for their own use would remain relatively unaffected except for seed price as they consume what they grow rather than using corn as a cash crop. cattle with.....It's relatively cheap to grow, and that's good, because it keeps the price of beef down. Milk too. The cows eat the whole enchilada....Not just the corn itself. Turning the cows out into a freshly picked corn field produced some rather interesting results. You tried to never, ever get behind one especially if you though it was going to cough. They could "paint a wall" six feet up from 12 feet away. All I can say is it's a good thing they didn't sneeze. Ha! - I've never seen them do that....They usually chop up the whole crop and put it in a silo. - The cows don't eat it until several months later, after it is rotten and fermented. The cows also eat alfalfa and soy beans. During the Summer, they just graze on grass. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"All Things Mopar" wrote in message . .. Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound linguistic utterance Yes, but when the cows fart, do they use a catalytic converter? grin Don't laugh....It's been suggested that the gases released by cows contribute significantly to global warming....As a matter of fact, just vegetation rotting on the jungle floor contributes to global warming, even if there is no forest fire to get rid of it. You know, William, I was talking about this thread to my wife at dinner last night. She heard a lecture at our church from someone who would like to /untangle/ the mis- and dis- information associated with E-85 being negatively energy efficient as well as the mis- and dis-information associated with President Bush's recomendation to explore for oil in the north of Alaska and some other things related to our thirst for fossil fuels. It has always interested me in a black comedy sort of way how environmental extremists will go to any lengths to "save the spotted owl" Spotted owls contribute to global warming...... or some obscure one or two of 35,000+ species of mosquitos, but they are strangely silent on the truly important things dealing with human rights and American freedom. What it amounts to, is that any great unbalance between the number of animals on earth, and the number/amount of plants or foliage on earth can and will cause a problem. If we are going to really control our environment, we are going to have to maintain this balance at the proper levels. That means population control, as well as not chopping down the rainforests to make paper cups for big slurpies like there's no tomorrow. - As near as I can see, we haven't maintained anything like this kind of control. So, God, or nature, will sooner or later do it for us. We will continue to overpopulate, and dump burned paper & trees into the air, until we start dying off from no more air, or no more land to stand on, or something else. - I just wish I could come back for a couple of days in about a thousand years to see what happened.......I'm sure some of us will survive, but it won't be a very pretty place, with no more exotic animals or plants, and no more space to live in that's palatable.....We will have completely trashed our house....Even my cats know better than that....They go outside to relieve themselves...... So, now, /cows/ contribute to global warming? Would that be from evaporation of stuff in cow plops as well as gaseous emissions? After long research across a number of sources, I have personally concluded that the global warming threat is real, not imaginary and not alarmist bull****. I would hate to live in a coastal city when the tides come in! That said, I think we should eliminate /all/ sources of pollutants to the ozone layer and all of those other nasty things. My recommendation is to go back to washing our clothes by beating them against rocks at the nearby stream and cooking our means over an open wood fire. Wait! That's bad too! Guess we just have to do an "On The Beach" and get rid of ourselves. (that's sarcasm, son! grin) -- ATM, aka Jerry "Never try to reason with a fool" - Roadsign |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"Rich" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 May 2006 01:39:33 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote: Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound linguistic utterance Yes, but when the cows fart, do they use a catalytic converter? grin Don't laugh....It's been suggested that the gases released by cows contribute significantly to global warming....As a matter of fact, just vegetation rotting on the jungle floor contributes to global warming, even if there is no forest fire to get rid of it. You know, William, I was talking about this thread to my wife at dinner last night. She heard a lecture at our church from someone who would like to /untangle/ the mis- and dis- information associated with E-85 being negatively energy efficient as well as the mis- and dis-information associated with President Bush's recomendation to explore for oil in the north of Alaska and some other things related to our thirst for fossil fuels. It has always interested me in a black comedy sort of way how environmental extremists will go to any lengths to "save the spotted owl" or some obscure one or two of 35,000+ species of mosquitos, but they are strangely silent on the truly important things dealing with human rights and American freedom. So, now, /cows/ contribute to global warming? Would that be from evaporation of stuff in cow plops as well as gaseous emissions? After long research across a number of sources, I have personally concluded that the global warming threat is real, not imaginary and not alarmist bull****. I would hate to live in a coastal city when the tides come in! That said, I think we should eliminate /all/ sources of pollutants to the ozone layer and all of those other nasty things. My recommendation is to go back to washing our clothes by beating them against rocks at the nearby stream and cooking our means over an open wood fire. Wait! That's bad too! Guess we just have to do an "On The Beach" and get rid of ourselves. (that's sarcasm, son! grin) E-85 is soooooo environmentally friendly. How much rainforest have the Brazilians chopped down to make way for the crops used to make E-85? They are chopping them down anyway. At least, if they do it for E-85, they are growing something in their place. That's better than replacing them with parking lots....The corn, or sugar cane, converts CO2 back into O2. - The exotic animals that live in them? - Well, lets face it...They are doomed anyway. We human beings are going to consume our earth alive, and spit out nothing but tobacco juice, and before we're done, nothing else will have even half a chance of surviving....... |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:24:21 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote: "Roger" wrote in message news On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:01:13 -0700, "William Graham" wrote: The cows eat the whole enchilada....Not just the corn itself. Turning the cows out into a freshly picked corn field produced some rather interesting results. You tried to never, ever get behind one especially if you though it was going to cough. They could "paint a wall" six feet up from 12 feet away. All I can say is it's a good thing they didn't sneeze. Ha! - I've never seen them do that....They usually chop up the whole crop and put it in a silo. - The cows don't eat it until several months later, That's the difference between using corn as a cash crop and using it as cattle feed. As a cash crop the ears are picked and shelled in the field. The cobs and stalks are left to be worked back into the ground. Using corn to make alcohol requires it to be ripe where the kernels and stalks are dry. Actually the whole plant is dead at that point and although it can be used for feed and was for years it does not contain near the food value of silage. OTOH some of the fodder (dried stalks or plants) can be decomposed and used in the process as well. The cobs can be burned for heat in the process. after it is rotten and fermented. The cows also eat alfalfa and soy beans. Ferments? Yes, Rots?? No, it's more like fermented and pickled. Think Kimche (sp?)... well that is more like rotting vegetables and meat with a good laxative thrown in. It's very popular in some Asian countries. During the Summer, they just graze on grass. Ever see a drunk chicken? Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"Roger" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:24:21 -0700, "William Graham" wrote: "Roger" wrote in message news On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:01:13 -0700, "William Graham" wrote: The cows eat the whole enchilada....Not just the corn itself. Turning the cows out into a freshly picked corn field produced some rather interesting results. You tried to never, ever get behind one especially if you though it was going to cough. They could "paint a wall" six feet up from 12 feet away. All I can say is it's a good thing they didn't sneeze. Ha! - I've never seen them do that....They usually chop up the whole crop and put it in a silo. - The cows don't eat it until several months later, That's the difference between using corn as a cash crop and using it as cattle feed. As a cash crop the ears are picked and shelled in the field. The cobs and stalks are left to be worked back into the ground. Using corn to make alcohol requires it to be ripe where the kernels and stalks are dry. Actually the whole plant is dead at that point and although it can be used for feed and was for years it does not contain near the food value of silage. OTOH some of the fodder (dried stalks or plants) can be decomposed and used in the process as well. The cobs can be burned for heat in the process. after it is rotten and fermented. The cows also eat alfalfa and soy beans. Ferments? Yes, Rots?? No, it's more like fermented and pickled. Think Kimche (sp?)... well that is more like rotting vegetables and meat with a good laxative thrown in. It's very popular in some Asian countries. I love the stuff, myself....It is a Korean dish. I learned to eat it in San Francisco. Korean vegitarian Sushi is great, too. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
All Things Mopar wrote:
Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound linguistic utterance Unlike gasoline ethanol is renewable. After three cycles you're at par, on the 4th cycle you're ahead of whatever oil can ever deliver. The ratio is 1:1.38 (BTW). The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public. As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs. Nope: Ford, GM and Chrysler sell these at the same price as the non FFV vehicles. (In the beginning there was as much as $2000 difference; now most of the them are the same price at buy time). This was also mentioned on 60 minutes last night and on the doe site you can find which vehicles carry a premium and which do not. Most do not. Over 6 M vehicles delivered in the US so far from Ford, GM and Chrysler. While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost department. Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production increased, economies of scale will continue to reduce the cost. Yes, if we can see light at the end of the tunnel this soon in the process, think what it will be like when every filling station in the land has one pump that pumps it. There is something very satisfying about the idea that you can actually grow fuel for your car. That the growing fuel crop will eat up the CO2 that it will eventually generate when burned in your engine... Yes, I read it all. What I think is hilarious about corn gas is that it is negatively efficient, meaning it takes more energy to produce it than is saved. Wrong: The output is about 1.38:1 (output:input). Gasoline requires a lot of energy to produce as well (fractioning process). It takes less energy than ethanol, but it is non-renewable. Adding to the negative efficiency is that any internal combustion engine running on ethanol will get less MPG than the equivalent car on gas and will perform less well. Reason? There are less heat BTUs in a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gas. Cars run on heat energy from whatever fuel they burn. Another silly-ass example of negative efficiency is an all-electric car - these "burn" "clean" energy which is "free" from electrical powerplants, right? Well, besides nuclear and coal, both of which have problems and are hardly "free", the rest burn either oil or natural gas - or "natural gas" formed from oil. Any energy that is non-renewable is wasted when used. Any energy source that poluted locally (auto) has more impact than using stored electricity from a concentrated and more controlled source (oil, gas, coal). Nuclear is ironically the best as advances in breeder reactors can produce more energy than we can ever use (despite being non-renewable). The good news is that in the right reactor types (non have been built), the radioactive waste is reduced to short half life waste. Ethanol, while not perfect in any way, at least is renewable. Brazil's consumption is now up to 40% Ethanol v. 60% gasoline and the ratio is growing. It is cheaper despite the lower per gallon mileage as the gap between gas and ethanol (e90) is greater than the energy gap. Enjoy the ride, it is indeed a first-class scam, as are hybrid cars which /never/ break even. Don't believe me? Google for it. At 15,000 miles per year, gas has to exceed $5/gal for a Toyota Prius to break even in 6 years. Source? In any case, people don't buy these now for econimic reasons, they buy them to be part of the change. As the technology is improved, the ROI will get better and better. Regrettably Honda really missed the mark with the Accord V6 hybrid making an "environmental muscle car" that is a bit expensive, but does not return a very big gas savings. They should have done a four banger. And, that does not include the cost of a battery replacement after 4 years, but does include the tax breaks. If you now assume gas at the current $3/gal (about), this same Prius would need to be driven 35,000 miles/year to break-even in the same 6 years. The warranty on the Honda hybrids is 8 years for the battery. And agian, Prius owners do it for pride of contribution. In California they get access to HOV lanes with only one occupant. (A recent visitor to our company was proudly saying that she and her husband had just received their second prius). Mindless insanity. No. Great things begin with a premium. How many private people owned the original 8088 based PC when it cost over $3000 in 1982? Very few, but they, and business, caused a new era to begin and now you can get a powerful PC suite for under $1000. It takes time and evolution to make things payoff. To "fix" the "obscene" oil company profits, change the way CAFE is defined and tested. Then, stop using the doubly efficient modern cars to move twice as far from work and stop driving trucks that weight 7,500 pounds. Now you're onto the right thing. The only way to reduce pollution and demand, and hence prices is to stop wasting gasoline and especially stop believing the "increase supply" myth. Proven reserves are increasing in quantity at a rate that is drarfed by even a 0.5% increase in demand. But demand is growing much faster than 0.5%... If one looks at the overall usage of gasoline over the past 30 years, it has actually gone up, except in years where some external force has messed things up. And, miles driven have gone up even faster, as have average vehicle weights. US: 30% more vehicles on the road since 1980 70-30 ratio of cars to "light trucks" (light trucks, minivans, SUV's) has changed to 51-49 Urban sprawl resulting in more miles driven. So, more vehicles that comsume more being driven more. And the Chinese middle calss has discovered the automobile and are bying in droves. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|