Last post on Nov 12, 2013 at 6:13 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#1032 of 1068 Morass of Misinformation continues from just one source here! ?
Nov 01, 2010 (4:20 am)
galonga you are INCORRECT regarding the basics of the various combustion/calories/BTUs/energy-contents. And your arguments are hereby BEATEN LIKE A RENTED MULE:
you are INCORRECT when you state that mixing ethanol with gas lowers mpg only in certain vehicles.
These laws of physics/combustion/energy-content are hard facts. They apply to all vehicles, regardlesss of their national origin or design or fuel type.
Next it seems like YOU are SO VERY WRONGLY alleging that USA ethanol is somehow chemically different than BRAZILIAN ethanol! That seems unlikely, but hey, bust out the chemical formulae and knock our socks off, galonganator man. Give us some real facts instead of pseudoscientific hogwash.
Next you are talking about ethanol-only vehicles. I think we do enjoy ethanol-only cars here in USA , I think they are called race cars! (?) Galonga, as an esteemed co-member and a gentleman, you are proposing ethanol-only cars for the street in USA now? Please let's first confirm the abject unequivocal defeat of your arguments on the first few subjects before we try to move forward to your next round of misinformation sir?
Nov 01, 2010 (4:31 am)
The purpose of these fora as I understand it is a free and open airing of ones personal views regarding the title of the forum. I assume that these discussions primarily relate to subjects in the world of automobiles in America. One of the posters attempted to introduce
some international flavor by touting another countries' approach to the use of ethanol. The title of one of his posts was "Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution'. I felt this was a bit edgy in that it attacks our use of gasoline (a remarkable substance). Ethanol / Brazil is quite different from ethanol /US. If the subject of his post had referred to ethanol instead of gasoline he would have been right on, IMHO.
I think this forum has completely exposed the folly of our approach to the use of ethanol as a motor fuel; I don't know what more can be said.
Nov 01, 2010 (8:16 am)
Disageeing about something is fine. We just have to avoid the comments that get aimed at each other on a personal level.
I'm sure we can ALL get in the spirit of things and avoid the personal barbs going forward, right?
Thanks for your participation and cooperation!
#1035 of 1068 Re: Like I said... [pf_flyer]
Nov 01, 2010 (9:41 am)
Everyone reacts to alcohol differently.
#1036 of 1068 Re: Like I said... [pf_flyer]
Nov 01, 2010 (5:41 pm)
#1037 of 1068 Brazilians lucky to have Flex Fuel Vehicles
Nov 02, 2010 (3:17 pm)
History repeats itself. The demise of the E100 vehicles came about with a shortage of sugar. Looks like it may happen again. Good luck finding E100 if that is all your car will burn.
Sweet could get expensive. Raw sugar prices may rise to the highest level in more than 30 years by March, if dry weather hits the Brazilian sugar crop, broker Newedge USA told Bloomberg News.
Sugar prices have more than doubled since May on concern about output in Brazil, Russia, China and Pakistan.
"If there's less rain than normal in Brazil until March, you could potentially see a reduction in the cane harvest, and then you have a potentially big problem," Michael McDougall, a senior vice president at Newedge, told Bloomberg News.
Also, India may curb its sugar exports as it tries to rebuild its reserves, pushing prices higher. The reserves are currently less than half its preferred level of 10 million metric tons.
"Current prices show that the market needs Indian sugar," McDougall told Bloomberg News.
#1038 of 1068 From Mr Inconvenient Truth himself
Nov 22, 2010 (12:06 pm)
Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol
Report: Al Gore Reverses View on Ethanol, Blames Politics for Previous Support
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa.
Speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank, Gore said the lobbyists have wrongly kept alive the program he once touted.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying.
Credits for corn ethanol subsidies expire at the end of the year unless Congress
moves to renew the $7.7 billion annual program. Opponents of the corn subsidies say that it removes valuable food products from the table because the U.S. ethanol industry drives up the price of corn.
Reuters reported that Gore attributed a variety of factors to the food pricing crisis that has emerged, but that biofuels
definitely have had an effect.
"The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being (used for) first-generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices," he said. "The competition with food prices is real."
#1039 of 1068 Re: From Mr Inconvenient Truth himself [gagrice]
by PFFlyer@Edmunds HOST
Nov 22, 2010 (12:38 pm)
I keep channeling Capt. Renault from the movie Casablanca more and more...
I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on around ethanol
#1040 of 1068 Re: From Mr Inconvenient Truth himself [pf_flyer]
Nov 22, 2010 (12:54 pm)
Funny thing is. He did not win his home state of TN, in his presidential bid.
#1041 of 1068 More wasted tax dollars on Ethanol subsidies
Dec 13, 2010 (5:43 am)
More Pork for big Ag.
Republicans in Congress have taken giant steps forward to restore American economic vitality but, as the current tax legislation, up for a cloture vote in the Senate on Monday proves the GOP has yet to prove that they are serious about cutting spending. Nestled within the legislation that extends the Bush tax cuts for another two years is a 45 cents per gallon subsidy for ethanol, as well as a retroactive $1 per gallon credit for bio-diesel fuel. Continuing these subsidies costs taxpayers approximately $5 billion a year.
Budget-busting subsidies and bailouts of failing industries have been a mainstay of the Democrats in Congress over the last two years, but the tax legislation reveals that there are GOP senators who are not immune from the temptations of pork.
Folks familiar with Iowan Senator Charles Grassley are aware of his characterization as a deficit hawk, tough on waste, fraud and abuse, and yet, he’s the last hold-out on ethanol subsidies, an enormous source of government waste.
Even Al Gore has faced the inconvenient truth that ethanol “is not a good policy.” Corn-based ethanol is expensive and has dubious environmental benefits. Moreover, huge subsidies for corn-based ethanol drive up the cost of food as large amounts of U.S. farm production is diverted to make expensive fuel. Americans are then forced to buy a product that they do not want, because of government mandates for ethanol inclusion in gasoline blends. At the same time, protectionist measures prevent the importation of cheaper forms of ethanol made in Brazil, from sugar cane. These decisions, that enrich the Iowa corn industry, cost taxpayers dearly.
The good news is that the ethanol subsidy and the bio-diesel subsidy were due to expire at the end of this year. But, sadly, Grassley has placed parochial politics above the good of the GOP and the good of the country, and insisted that the extension be tagged on to the tax-cut legislation. So, there goes another 5 billion.