[OT - US/Canada] E-85

Robert Brace wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Alan Browne wrote:
Robert Brace wrote:

I miss no main points, believe me. However, your assertion that I
missed
them because I take you to task for your narcissistic view that we all
should blindly accept your "solutions", is naive in the extreme.

US car makers STILL oppose increased federal fuel economy standards.
Forr the last half century US car makers have opposed almost every
efficiency and safety standard advanced by the government.

Really? To what specific "efficiency" standard are you referring?

Fuel efficiency.

If they
had their way we'd still be driving cars with no seatbelts, no
airbags, no ABS brakes, and 12MPG fuel economy.

Wise up & try to take a non-hyperbolic look at the facts instead of your
version of them.

I see no rebuttal from you. Only whining.

How do you reduce oil consumption? Make it more expensive.

Agreed.

Eliminate all subsidies and make drivers pay ALL of the costs.

And leave the derivation of those charges in the capable & unquestionably
hyper-honest Gov't of the day's hands --- NOT!

More whining.

JAPANESE car makers seem to have little difficulty in making cars that
get 30 to 60 miles per gallon. Maybe if the execs of the US companies
were more concerned about running the business than justifying their
obscene salaries then they'd see about producing better cars.

There is so much dis-information and supposition in that paragraph as to
make it not worth addressing.

Run away, coward.

--
Ray Fischer

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Robert
Brace laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

There are still rice burners who haven't gotten the word on
traveling seat belts yet, but the Americans got rid of them
almost two decades ago, so don't blame the U.S. people for
this one.

It appears I've got to explain the obvious again. What I'm
saying here is that if NA depends upon the Gov's mandated
"safety" and "efficiency" standards to set our course by, we
are in deep do do immediately, never mind anything else.
Blame the US people -- hardly! Read the previous poster and
my response again -- s-l-o-o-o-w-l-y this time. Bob

It seems this thread is infested with Canucks and other
foreigners, so are you an American, and a citizen? If yes, do you
vote? Then, do not blame the American people per se for
rediculous standards or for any perception of blame by the car
makers or the government, for that matter. Don't like the
representatives and president you got, vote the bums out and
elect ones you do.

As to "safety" and "efficiency", people have quite different
ideas about those than does the gubmint and most likely different
than yours. Everyone wants to be safe but doesn't really
understand what that means, how to get it, how to know when you
have it, or how much it really costs. Nor do they know what the
trade-offs are. e.g., many people drive huge trucks and SUVs, the
antithesis of "efficiency" because they perceive they are "safe",
and they may well be using the theory of kinetic energy
dissapated in a collision with a smaller object.

But, they come with outrageous compromises such as really bad
front, side, and rear blind spots. Consumers Report did a major
study on the reasons objects, people, and especially small
children are run over by vehicles, and concluded that the risk is
mainly from the object or child being within the blind spot of
the vehicle whether the driver was backing with their mirror or
attempting to look out the windows and backlite. And, the very
large, very high big SUVs and 4x4 trucks had rear blind spots 2-4
times as long as smaller sedans with narrow pillars and large
greenhouses.

As to "efficiency" as used in this thread, everyone likes to
complain about the price of gas while they're standing at the
pump but still drive around with a 7,500 pound vehicle /alone/,
so I don't think they really give a **** about efficiency.

BTW, I saw yet another treatist on E-85, the main subject here,
talking about farmers cashing in on the frenzy to go yellow.
Seems one big reason they're so happy is exactly what I've been
preaching - ethanol has only 75%, maybe a little less, heat
energy as measured in BTUs, than an equivalent amount of
gasoline, so it is no surprise that fuel economy goes /down/ by
that amount as measured in mpg or miles/tank of gas, and
peformance takes a similar hit. Plus, the many dumb-asses trying
to save a buck or be green while they're being yellow, are
pouring E-85 into gas-only vehicles and destroying the fuel
system to the tune of thousands of dollars in repair costs.

The Big Three as well as the largest Asian and European
manufacturers, meeting recently with the U.S. federal government
again stressed /not/ to put anything more than E-10 in a standard
vehicle, and /not/ to try to modify one for E-85 or try to burn
E-85 in anything except a flex-fuel vehicle designed for it.

One more time: yes, one can "renew" ethanol by just growing more
corn, but it still takes - using today's technology - more energy
to produce a gallon of ethanol than the heat energy obtained, so
for the foreseeable future, E-85 is /negatively/ efficient, and
is believed to be worse on so-called "greenhouse gasses",
although no major studies have yet been made. So, E-85 isn't
energy efficient to produce and may actually use non-renewable
oil to do it, it barely costs less to buy than straight gas, gets
less mpg hence one has to buy more, etc. The best that can be
claimed is that someday, it /may/ reduce our dependency on
foreigh oil.

Now to the clincher: out of something like 12,000+ gas stations
across the U.S. less than 700 pump E-85 today. Care to guess why?
'Cuz there's an oligopoly running the gas biz today and they
revoke franchises and/or refuse to sell gas to stations carrying
E-85. So, it will be a real uphill battle to get the E-85 to the
(apparently) eager buyers, and even when/if it does happen, said
buyers will be instantly ****ed off at their /increase/ in cost
for an invisible amount of "efficiency".

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"English is a language hard to understand, but easy to
misunderstand" - Unknown or George Bernard Shaw

Ray Fischer wrote:
Andrew Venor wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

Andrew Venor wrote:


Ray Fischer wrote:



Yes.....He has had to make up for Clinton's lack of action in an world of
ever increasing hostility.....


What a typically stupid statement. Clinton went after terrorists.

We saw with hindsight that blowing up some tents and mud huts with
cruise missiles after the Africa embassy bombings wasn't an effective
strategy against Al Qaeda.


And so you neocons prove yet again that you care more about your
partisan cult than oyu care about America.

Throwing out veiled anti-Semitic insults tells me you don't have an
argument to make.


You idiotic non sequitur proves that all you care about is attacking
Clinton and justifying Bush.

What ever you might think of President Bush after Sept. 11, 2001 their
hasn't been another attack on US soil since the Taliban was toppled and
Al Qaeda had to go on the lam.

You have admit that after President Clinton blew up some tents it didn't
deter Al Qaeda from attacking the USS Cole in 2000 or the events of
Sept. 11, 2001.


The terrorist who attacked the WTC were caught, tried, and imprisoned.

The destruction of the World Trade Center and attack on the Pentagon in
2001 was an event that was several magnitudes greater than the truck
bombing of 1993.


And notice that Bush hasn't made it a very high priority to go after
the attackers.

I think that removing Al Qaeda's host government in a country half way
around the world looks like he made a big effort towards that goal.


The 2001 attacks in New York, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania were levels of destruction previously reserved to nation
states.


More people die of food poisoning every year in the US.

Do you have a figure to back that statement up? Besides, food poisoning
isn't a planned attack on the nation by a foreign non state organization
out to destroy us.



What has Bush done?

For one thing toppling the Taliban government.

Which didn't threaten the US at all.

The Taliban was providing aid, shelter, and support in Afghanistan to
the terrorist who had killed thousands of Americans.


They were asking for evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks.
Bush decided to invade instead. And then Bush let bin Laden go.

No bin Laden fled the country and escaped. A big difference than your view.



While their is still a
long road ahead to try and bring Afghanistan out of the middle ages, it
was a start.

The neocon calls for a new world dictatorship ruled by the US.

You would rather that religious minorities like the Hindus in
Afghanistan be persecuted, and oppressed.


You would rather persecute and kill Muslims.

No I would rather that everybody get along. However if their is a group
out there with a nihilistic and fascist interpretation is Islam that
wants to kill unbelievers in general, and Americans in particular then I
think they should be stopped.

It looks like you on the other hand want to cheer them on.


[...]

What is it about some people on the left that causes them to align
themselves with the most repressive illiberal dictatorships on the


What is it about you fascists that you want to kill people by the
hundreds of thousands in order to force them to do as you think best?


You would rather that millions be killed by foreign despots like Saddam
Hussein just so long as they hate America just like you do. Do us all a
favor and stop drinking Noam Chomski's bong water. It seems to be
twisting your vision.

ALV

All Things Mopar wrote:


It seems this thread is infested with Canucks and other
foreigners, so are you an American, and a citizen?

Ahem. This little usenet world has no political boundaries. OTOH,
Americans are the world champions at building the least MPG cars for an
uncaring market. The same market that vowed in 1973 to stop being so
wasteful with energy.



--
-- 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.

Ray Fischer wrote:

How do you reduce oil consumption? Make it more expensive. Eliminate
all subsidies and make drivers pay ALL of the costs.

A direct cost at the pump for the war in Iraq? There's a thought!

"Gas prices shot up to $7.70 today as a Gen. Blitzkrieg prepared an
offensive to oust rebels from ... prices are expected to come down again
next week."

And ... add a non linear tax for MPG. High MPG, you get a credit. Low
MPG, you get a hefty tax.

I'd start with the balance line at about 35 mpg and raise it 1 mpg per year.




--
-- 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.

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Alan Browne
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

All Things Mopar wrote:


It seems this thread is infested with Canucks and other
foreigners, so are you an American, and a citizen?

Ahem. This little usenet world has no political boundaries.
OTOH, Americans are the world champions at building the least
MPG cars for an uncaring market. The same market that vowed
in 1973 to stop being so wasteful with energy.

The issue I was referring to Alan, was Canucks or anyone else not
an American citizen trying to tell Americans what to do. They can
do whatever is economically and politically desirable in Canada
or other foreign country but have no standing whatsoever here.
And, I don't really care who is or is not the leading user of
energy, it is jurisdiction that is important here.

But, what I mainly notice every day of the year is that everybody
says they want to conserve and everybody says they want to stop
global warming and everybody says want to end world-wide
addiction to oil, but when it comes time to sign the lease or buy
contract, they just keep on driving bigger and more powerful
vehicles ever farther every year. And, about 19 out of 20 people
I see driving a large SUV is alone in the car. Wonder why they
need 7-9 passenger seating and 10,000 pound towing to go to work
or go shopping - yes, many of the drivers are women obviously
going to K-Mart.

When any evidence at all suggests that this issue is being taken
seriously, then I'll discuss it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to
redicule idiots for thinking they're saving something by using E-
85 which is only 75% as efficient for miles/tank and performance
at a scant 5 cent/gallon savings, not to mention there's less
than 700 out of over 12,000 gas stations that even sell it. Big
God Damn deal!

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"English is a language hard to understand, but easy to
misunderstand" - Unknown or George Bernard Shaw

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Alan Browne
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

Ray Fischer wrote:

How do you reduce oil consumption? Make it more expensive.
Eliminate all subsidies and make drivers pay ALL of the
costs.

A direct cost at the pump for the war in Iraq? There's a
thought!

"Gas prices shot up to $7.70 today as a Gen. Blitzkrieg
prepared an offensive to oust rebels from ... prices are
expected to come down again next week."

And ... add a non linear tax for MPG. High MPG, you get a
credit. Low MPG, you get a hefty tax.

I'd start with the balance line at about 35 mpg and raise it 1
mpg per year.

This is total lunacy as it is highly regressive, the tax falls
most heavily on the poor, and a high tax on gas guzzlers will
discourage owners from trading them in for the tax creditmobile
du jour for years. So, where's the incentive, other than to make
poor people poorer? Do you really think the Driver of a Cadillac
Escalade or Licoln Navigator really gives a **** about the price
of gas? I know I certainly don't mind paying $3/gallon to drive
my 340 HP HEMI Charger.

Go sell your fish somewhere where the liberals are listening, it
doesn't play well in Peoria that I can see.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"English is a language hard to understand, but easy to
misunderstand" - Unknown or George Bernard Shaw

All Things Mopar wrote:

The issue I was referring to Alan, was Canucks or anyone else not
an American citizen trying to tell Americans what to do.

This is not a national issue or political issue.

It is a global social and economic issue. That you can't see that is
part of the problem.

To me, with your gas-guzzler 4000 lb 5.7 L Charger, you, personally,
are a reckless slob who is harming the world needlessly to satisfy your
little boy urge for powerful acceleration.

That you believe this is good, neat or cool is a major part of the
problem. It is far past time for you to grow up. Those of us who have
grown up long ago realized that an automobile serves one purpose:
transportation. It is an invention that is relatively old, there is
nothing magical about it anymore. It is just an other iota on the
crowded roads of the world. Automobiles are so common that when you see
people fawning over them you have to wonder what their sickness is.
They are just cars. Period. Best that they pollute less, be less noisy
and not suck the earth dry of its resources in an untimely way.

This is not limited to you or Americans; it is everywhere that people
waste energy needlessly.

The only reason I being up "the US" so much is that, at 25% of the
worlds oil consumption you have the most opportunities to waste or to
save oil. It's non-renewable. Really.

There are by proportion as many Canadians as Americans who love their
gas guzzling slob mobiles. It doesn't make them any more right than you
are.

It is not an American problem. It's a worldwide problem. But there are
a lot more Americans than anyone else causing the problem. When you
have the good grace to admit that, then maybe you can sit down and
wonder if you're a better engineer for liking a gas guzzler like yours
or if you'd be a better engineer to design, make, and drive, efficient
vehicles.

Chrsyler/Dodge make me sick with adverts like: " Decadance without the
shame " adverts for 5.7 L vehicles. It's disgusting. It is _decadent_.

Cheers,
Alan.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
All Things Mopar wrote:

The issue I was referring to Alan, was Canucks or anyone else not an
American citizen trying to tell Americans what to do.

This is not a national issue or political issue.

It is a global social and economic issue. That you can't see that is part
of the problem.

To me, with your gas-guzzler 4000 lb 5.7 L Charger, you, personally, are
a reckless slob who is harming the world needlessly to satisfy your little
boy urge for powerful acceleration.

That you believe this is good, neat or cool is a major part of the
problem. It is far past time for you to grow up. Those of us who have
grown up long ago realized that an automobile serves one purpose:
transportation. It is an invention that is relatively old, there is
nothing magical about it anymore. It is just an other iota on the crowded
roads of the world. Automobiles are so common that when you see people
fawning over them you have to wonder what their sickness is. They are just
cars. Period. Best that they pollute less, be less noisy and not suck
the earth dry of its resources in an untimely way.

This is not limited to you or Americans; it is everywhere that people
waste energy needlessly.

The only reason I being up "the US" so much is that, at 25% of the worlds
oil consumption you have the most opportunities to waste or to save oil.
It's non-renewable. Really.

There are by proportion as many Canadians as Americans who love their gas
guzzling slob mobiles. It doesn't make them any more right than you are.

It is not an American problem. It's a worldwide problem. But there are a
lot more Americans than anyone else causing the problem. When you have
the good grace to admit that, then maybe you can sit down and wonder if
you're a better engineer for liking a gas guzzler like yours or if you'd
be a better engineer to design, make, and drive, efficient vehicles.

Chrsyler/Dodge make me sick with adverts like: " Decadance without the
shame " adverts for 5.7 L vehicles. It's disgusting. It is _decadent_.

Cheers,
Alan.

Chrysler does make some pretty efficient vehicles....their PT cruiser and
Sebring are both 28 or 29 mpg (freeway) vehicles that cost around
$20,000.......I just claim that these vehicles wouldn't exist were it not
for the foreign influence over the last 30 years.....IOW, the big three had
to have their faces rubbed in it before they finally saw the
light.......People like Toyota and Volkswagen dragged them, kicking and
screaming, out of their fixation on huge monsters, and showed them that
small cars can and do sell well.......

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
. ..
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Alan Browne
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

Ray Fischer wrote:

How do you reduce oil consumption? Make it more expensive.
Eliminate all subsidies and make drivers pay ALL of the
costs.

A direct cost at the pump for the war in Iraq? There's a
thought!

"Gas prices shot up to $7.70 today as a Gen. Blitzkrieg
prepared an offensive to oust rebels from ... prices are
expected to come down again next week."

And ... add a non linear tax for MPG. High MPG, you get a
credit. Low MPG, you get a hefty tax.

I'd start with the balance line at about 35 mpg and raise it 1
mpg per year.

This is total lunacy as it is highly regressive, the tax falls
most heavily on the poor, and a high tax on gas guzzlers will
discourage owners from trading them in for the tax creditmobile
du jour for years. So, where's the incentive, other than to make
poor people poorer? Do you really think the Driver of a Cadillac
Escalade or Licoln Navigator really gives a **** about the price
of gas? I know I certainly don't mind paying $3/gallon to drive
my 340 HP HEMI Charger.

Then you are an exception, and not the general rule. Sales statistics show
that people are switching to smaller, more efficient vehicles, according to
the financial CNBC news that I watch every morning...