- #876 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [galonga]
by jkinzel
-
Jul 12, 2009 (1:49 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: galonga (Jul 12, 2009 1:14 am)
Where did you EVER get this number from my friend? Diesel engines are not even EXPLOSION, but COMBUSTION engines, and that's because oil-based fuels do not even explode, so low is their energy content!
?
|
- #877 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [gagrice]
by kipk
-
Jul 13, 2009 (3:02 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 12, 2009 5:30 am)
>"I don't like it forced onto the rest of the country with the loss in mileage that is well documented. !0% ethanol equals 10% loss of mileage."
Yep!
And amazing to me how the Ethanol crowd can't seem to understand that, with a 10% drop in mileage, we are forced to buy 10% more fuel to go the same distance.
So we are burning the same amount of Dino PLUS the Ethanol.
Does 11 gallons of 10% Ethanol produce less emissions than 10 gallons of pure Dino ?
Kip
|
- #878 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [kipk]
by pf_flyer HOST
-
Jul 13, 2009 (3:08 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Jul 13, 2009 3:02 am)
Does 11 gallons of 10% Ethanol produce less emissions than 10 gallons of pure Dino ?
See? Now THAT is an interesting question that we'll probably never get a straight answer to because an ethanol proponent's answer would likely be, "You can't compare emissions from different amounts of fuel". But I'm like you. I understand that I'm not burning any less gasoline or doing anything to decrease demand on gasoline production because ethanol has been added to the mix.
|
- #879 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [pf_flyer]
by kipk
-
Jul 13, 2009 (3:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Jul 13, 2009 3:08 am)
Seems to me that even if Ethanol required absolutely ZERO energy and emissions to produce, we would still be polluting more with the 10% increase in fuel volume to go the same distance.
Add in the emissions to produce the stuff and we are paying more to pollute more. Somewhat of a Loose-Loose situation for the masses and a Win-Win for the corn producers.
Kip
|
- #880 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [kipk]
by morin2
-
Jul 13, 2009 (3:30 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Jul 13, 2009 3:29 am)
Even if we assume that the emissions are the same, that ignores the problem of the pollution that results from the production of the corn. Where corn is replacing soybeans, the increased nitrogen runoff is polluting the water that receive it. Here in the Chesapeake Bay region, the state and fed govts are spending millions to attempt to remove a tiny fraction of the pollution from nitrogen runoff. A classic case of unintended consequences that should be taught in every environmental biology class in the country.
|
- #881 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [morin2]
by pafromfl
-
Jul 13, 2009 (7:34 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: morin2 (Jul 13, 2009 3:30 pm)
In addition, the corn-derived ethanol depletes the Midwest aquifer and drives up the worldwide price of food. If ethanol actually reduced oil consumption, some of the side effects might be tolerable. However E10 actually increases net oil consumption. Word is spreading. The Greenies should quickly admit E10 was a mistake or they will lose all credibility with the public.
|
- #882 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [pafromfl]
by kirstie_h HOST
-
Jul 14, 2009 (5:36 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: pafromfl (Jul 13, 2009 7:34 pm)
Yeah, I'm having a hard time getting why anyone continues to prop up this ridiculous failed experiment.
I happen to live down the street from a few gas stations that have non-ethanol blended fuel, and I always have to remember to fill up if I head eastward - once you get about 10 miles from here, it's all ethanol-blended.
I can't remember the last time I saw even a semi-reasonable argument for ethanol.
|
- #883 of 921
-
Re: American Ingenuity beats a disaster! Keep America moving! [kirstie_h]
by jkinzel
-
Jul 14, 2009 (1:27 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: kirstie_h (Jul 14, 2009 5:36 am)
I happen to live down the street from a few gas stations that have non-ethanol blended fuel,
Your lucky, we, i.e. WA State has a 10% law. There is no pure gasoline for sale in Washington State.
|
- #884 of 921
-
Re: A simple question [galonga]
by pf_flyer HOST
-
Jul 14, 2009 (3:46 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: galonga (Jun 13, 2009 4:05 am)
If the ONLY reason you see for using ethanol is getting a better mileage (thatīs at least whatīs being inferred from your post) then you did not understand a thing about the benefits of ethanol.
What I keep hearing is that the reason we're using ethanol is to reduce our dependence on oil. I already KNOW it does nothing but reduce mileage performance by an amount that guarantees no reduction in our use of or need for oil.
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, what's the benefit of this nonsense? Green at ANY cost? (And it isn't even all that green)
I have a solid year of experience with ethanol now and the only thing it's proved to me is that a lot of subsidy money has been wasted. But that's not a big change for the folks in DC is it?
|
- #885 of 921
-
Re: A simple question [pf_flyer]
by gagrice
-
Jul 14, 2009 (4:52 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Jul 14, 2009 3:46 pm)
I cannot imagine anyone being for Corn Ethanol, unless it is feeding their family. It is corporate welfare for Big AG & companies like ADM and Verasun. And we the tax payers are paying at the pump and on April 15th. We lose tax dollars and mileage with Corn Ethanol. "Stop the Ethanol nonsense NOW" should be a grass roots movement.
|