[OT - US/Canada] 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

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

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

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?

"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.

"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

"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.......

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

"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.

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.