Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

Sheesh. I didn't take your statement out of context to mislead anyone, I simply didn't post the entire thing because I wasn't replying to all of it. The original post is still there.

But to be clear, your further information doesn't counter my point--which was that everything you want people to do, they would do almost automatically and without thinking if it made economic sense to them. You just wrote a paragraph about the increased use of ethanol.

The increased use of ethanol has severe problems also. The source for ethanol is corn, which though renewable, is a finite resource just like every other resource in the world.

Increased demand for ethanol is already starting to raise the price for corn. This is leading to increased prices for product ranging from tortillas to Fritos. And with the President calling for US Government vehicles to use ethanol blends, the dramatically increased demand for corn will cause the price to skyrocket.

Because of the increased demand, farmers will start getting better returns on yield for corn. This will lead to farmers planting corn rather than soybeans, wheat or other crops, leading to lower production of those other crops. Less wheat and soybeans means higher prices on products ranging from bread to tofurkeys.

Corn requires far more water than wheat or soybeans and because farmers will be planting more corn in locations where there is not sufficient rainfall to grow the crop, the strain on water resources will grow. And who can blame poor third world farmers for wanting to make a better living?

This is only considering the costs associated with current 15% to 20% gasoline-ethanol blends. If an alternative fuel such as E85, with 80% ethanol, is brought into the picture then the previous points are greatly increased and have to include the costs of converting existing gasoling engines over to E85 use and increased vehicle costs related to massive retooling of automotive production lines.

The increased use of ethanol has severe problems also. The source for ethanol is corn, which though renewable, is a finite resource just like every other resource in the world. ...

And the extraction and use of oil and coal and gas doesn't have severe problems?

Just take a look at what Brazil has done and is actually doing with "flex-vehicles" - today, now, every day.

Get real!

Or are you saying that the great superpower of the U-S-of-A is even more of a lame Neanderthal monkey than even GW Bush is on this issue?

Wow... You're just so dumb blind negative... We're doomed you tell us! All doomed!! And for a problem you won't even admit to!

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

Sheesh. I didn't take your statement out of context to mislead anyone, I simply didn't post the entire thing because I wasn't replying to all of it. The original post is still there.

But to be clear, your further information doesn't counter my point--which was that everything you want people to do, they would do almost automatically and without thinking if it made economic sense to them. You just wrote a paragraph about the increased use of ethanol.

My point is Rush that while economics is a big factor in how the world operates, and I don't contest that. I do believe that people also hide behind it to a great degree. Industry also hides behind the status quo as well. Take for instance what KM said above about buying an e85 capable car. Simply put the technology isn't a restrictive factor anymore...I don't speak in terms of instantaneous change as he stated he drives a used car...well that's great and it works for him now (it sure gets better milage then some vehicles out there on the road that are brand new) but when his used car wears out and he is in the market for a new or newer used car it becomes his choice to either spend his money on a car capable of burning e85 or a car which only runs on gasoline. He has to make that choice...again there is no great difference in the price of the vehicle at this point only a difference in the potential impact on the environment. Even you can't argue with that because e85 vehicles are also fully capable of using regular gasoline without ethanol for the time being till e85 becomes less expensive, though that doesn't help the environment immediately. I therefore removed the argument of economics from making this decision and it becomes more of a moral debate.

Likewise he stated there aren't a lot of stations selling e85 right now. I can guarantee that if there was enough political pressure and oil companies were to find it in their best interest to develop more ethanol plants then you would see the industry shift (like KM's company), and quickly; which would cause the gasoline to become more expensive and ethanol to become cheaper. Simple law of supply and demand. Too many people think that to make changes they have to do without. This seems to be your major argument with making change. This is simply not always true...they simply have to make better choices...yes it may cost a bit more to do that at times but not always.

Even when it does cost them more to do, they will usually see a return on their money (see hybrid vehicles which fill up a tank half as much and have a tank two thirds the size of a standard japanese car). Lets use your cost benefit analysis to examine this. A hybrid vehicle costs not much more then your average car and in some cases less. Benefit the driver winds up using much less gas to go the same distance which in this day and age makes a huge difference, there by putting money back into the drivers pocket which in-turn pays for the car very quickly. Likewise the driver then is able to take the money saved and reinvest it or better yet spend it on other things that benefit the environment. Just think, two tanks of gas saved per year per person in the US would be capable of not only saving a lot of pollution into the environment but also would be capable of providing money for the "cure" that we talked about earlier with Misfit's post.

It also has another benefit of causing the oil industry to take notice because less demand for their product will equal lower prices at the pump. When the oil industry isn't making as much you can rest assured that they will look into making a profit in other ways, and will suddenly find the money to produce new products like e85. So it's not so much that we have to reinvent the wheel but rather we have to reinvent peoples perspectives. Change does not typically happen over night but a grassroots movement of people can have a huge impact. Even one person making a change has an effect when combined with other individuals who also are intent on change. Call it social engineering for global change of the environment. The best part is like I said before...it's already happening...it only needs to happen faster.

So I invite you to change your perspective.

---

There are a lot of " inturns " there. But again, it's all going to boil down to the economics. If I cannot afford a vehicle that runs on E-85 Ethanol, then I am not going to buy one. It's very simple. As I said, E-85 vehicles don't ( on average ) get the same fuel economy as regular vehicles ( and yes, I have looked it up, don't ask me for the link because I can't remember where it was ). Therefore, even if I could buy an E-85 vehicle, I probably wouldn't because of the increased cost for the fuel to run it. Also keep in mind that E-85 is more expensive than gas ( at least around here it is ).

Alright point made but quickly debunked by a quick search of google...I came up with this now I know that most people don't like when it's industry sponsored so I also went to a link further down the page. edmunds.com had the article. Also linked off the article is this livegreengoyellow.com which is of course is a campaign by GM. Of course it makes sense for them to market a product that can run in their vehicles...oh and by the way their vehicles are no more costly to the consumer than any other new car considering that an e85 vehicle changes the fuel mix by way of a sensor sort of like your O2 sensor in a car which regulates your fuel mix to air ratio so that when you go to higher altitudes you don't loose power...something that used to be lacking on old carburetor vehicles before fuel injection...eventually your fuel efficient (Saturn) car will need to be replaced and maybe then you will be replacing it with a new or used e85 compatible vehicle. Likewise the E85 that you are talking about being more expensive then regular fuel is only because of economics due to more demand then production at this point of e85 use...hence the reason that your company is converting one of their plants. It makes economic sense. If you want to see what e85 or better yet full ethanol vehicles are capable of look to Brazil which is nearly energy independent and has very little oil use at all. In Brazil because they have a large number of production plants in place their ethanol is even cheaper then their standard gasoline at the pumps.

[quote]In short. If you want everyone to take action and start doing things that are better for the environment and cut down on emissions, then you ( meaning the powers that be ) had better come up with something that is economically viable to all.

I couldn't agree more with you yet at the same time look around it's happening already...there just needs to be more of it and faster.

Ok. Point taken and I stand corrected on that particular point.

However, once again, you state something ( supply and demand ) that boils down to simple economics. You stated....

Likewise the E85 that you are talking about being more expensive then regular fuel is only because of economics due to more demand then production at this point of e85 use...

How long do you think it will be until there is an Ethanol station on every corner like there are gas stations?? If everyone goes out and gets an E-85 vehicle, then the sheer costs of the fuel to run them would be extremely prohibitive due to a serious lack of E-85 production facilities.

Here again I must point out that E-85 vehicles are fully capable of running on regular gasoline which doesn't help the enviroment in the short run but as more plants come online and more of a social push happens it will force the shift and will increase the speed at which the change happens.

Again, that is simply not economically viable at this point. There is no way that enough plants are going to be built in a short period of time to make up for the demand if everyone gets one of those vehicles immediately.

Again I'm talking about investing in he technology wich will make the change viable in the near future.

In your use of Brazil as an example, have you looked at how long it took for Brazil to get to the point it's at? I would be willing to bet ( without looking it up ) that it took them a few years to get where they are.

Your statement fails to address the availability issue that stands aside from the supply and demand issue.

Everyone ( figuratively speaking ) here in the area where I live could go out and get an E-85 vehicle, but there is simply no supply around here. The plant that we are converting is in Ohio. The nearest E-85 fueling station is almost 200 miles from here. Again, no supply. So even if I wanted to buy an E-85 car or truck, it simply wouldn't make sense at this point to do so.

Now, that being said, if GM came up with a cheap way to convert my current car ( under 500 dollars ) and if E-85 fuel was actually available in my area AND reasonably priced ( 50 cents or less higher than the cost of a gallon of gas ) then I would be happy to convert my car.

Funny you should say that... check this out about converting a vehical

For me, and for many, many others in the area I live, it is simply not economically sensible.

There are no quick fixes to the problems that are facing us. As much as people would love to be able to snap their fingers and have the solutions right there in front of them, it simply isn't going to happen that way. The kind of changes you are looking for are going to take time.

I think I proved above that it is economicly viable at this point by your standards.

No doubt it took Brazil a few years to get there. I did look it up and here is what I found...

Brazil nearly pioneered ethonol production starting in 1975 over 30 years ago. It's a quite interesting read because as you will see the true growth explosion took place after 2002 when the flex vehicals came on the market. 2002-2006 4 years was really about how long it took them in reality...again they reached the tipping point where technology became available which drove the market change. I would venture to say that the US could do it in 10 years or less if given the right push, since the technology is already on the market.

Below is a piece of the whole artical which can be found HERE

Brazil's ethanol program started in 1975, when soaring oil prices put a chokehold on the economy. In response, the country's military rulers launched an effort to free themselves from foreign oil — which then accounted for almost 90% of oil consumption — by developing innovative fuels. Ethanol made from sugar cane was an obvious candidate, given Brazil's almost endless amount of arable land and favorable climate.

Years of work and billions of dollars in subsidies later, Brazil is the world leader in ethanol production. It hasn't always been smooth sailing. The first ethanol-only vehicles were tough to start on cold mornings. Sugar mills responded to high world sugar prices in the late-1980s by producing more sugar and less ethanol, resulting in fuel shortages that left drivers fuming and seriously dented the program's reputation for reliability. By 2002, the ethanol-powered cars that were ubiquitous in the '80s represented just 3% of the market.

But in 2003 automakers rolled out "flex-fuel" cars, able to run on ethanol, gasoline or any mixture of the two. For drivers, the new cars eliminated the need to bet on a fuel type.

Today, 70% of new car sales are "flex," which are visibly indistinguishable from conventional cars. Only the "gasolina/alcool" label inside the gas tank lid gives them away. (Alcool, pronounced owl-cool, is the local term for pure ethanol.)

"You don't have to choose one or the other. It takes any mix," says Antonio Claudio, 45, a Volkswagen salesman.

Cars get fewer miles from a gallon of ethanol than from a gallon of gasohol. So consumers operate by a rough rule of thumb: so long as ethanol's price is no more than 70% of gasohol's, which it usually is, it makes sense to buy. Local newspapers periodically run charts showing readers how to make the calculation.

Brazilian drivers can fill up with ethanol at 29,000 filling stations. In the USA, there are only 600 gas stations that sell the E85 fuel — a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.

Brazilian drivers still consume more than 83% of the country's total ethanol production. But the export share has been growing for several years. Brazil already is shipping to nearby Venezuela, India and South Korea. Hopes for a major expansion of global ethanol trade revolve around Japan, which is considering mandating a 3% ethanol mix in its gasoline. If it does, worldwide demand would jump by one-third.

---

OK...so I had a nice long response prepared, but my computer decided it didn't want to post it.

On that site you linked for the conversion article, there was a disclaimer at the bottom about " This is an at risk project ".

My car has over 195,000 miles on it, I could do the conversion for 500-600 bucks, but I also stand the risk of doing over 1000 dollars worth of damage to my engine.

That is an awful big risk considering that I could not afford to buy a newer car if that was to happen, nor do I have the 1000 bucks to replace my motor or have repairs done.

I have enough money in the bank to survive a couple of months if I was to lose my job, but not anything more than that. I simply cannot ( and will not ) take that money and get the conversion done. I cannot leave myself vulnerable like that. Especially considering how unpredictable the employment situation in this state is.

So I will continue to do what I have been doing. I keep up on the maintenance of my vehicle. It is as efficient as it can be for it being a 99 Saturn with over 195k miles. I could be driving something a whole lot worse, so I really don't feel all that bad.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

OK...so I had a nice long response prepared, but my computer decided it didn't want to post it.

On that site you linked for the conversion article, there was a disclaimer at the bottom about " This is an at risk project ".

My car has over 195,000 miles on it, I could do the conversion for 500-600 bucks, but I also stand the risk of doing over 1000 dollars worth of damage to my engine.

That is an awful big risk considering that I could not afford to buy a newer car if that was to happen, nor do I have the 1000 bucks to replace my motor or have repairs done.

I have enough money in the bank to survive a couple of months if I was to lose my job, but not anything more than that. I simply cannot ( and will not ) take that money and get the conversion done. I cannot leave myself vulnerable like that. Especially considering how unpredictable the employment situation in this state is.

So I will continue to do what I have been doing. I keep up on the maintenance of my vehicle. It is as efficient as it can be for it being a 99 Saturn with over 195k miles. I could be driving something a whole lot worse, so I really don't feel all that bad.

You asked for real world viable options that was just one article that I found. It is very likely that he put the disclaimer on there for the same reasons everybody uses them...so they don't get sued if something were to go wrong.

It's interesting to note the information below which was from my original post about E-85 PAGE 7. I would also venture that the lower BTU content of E-85 should also cause less engine wear as engine heat causes thermal breakdown of oil which is the primary cause of engine wear and one of the main reasons that a manufacturer states to change engine oil every 3000 miles. If you take into account synthetics which have a longer life due to less thermal breakdown then the theory should hold.

3) Contrary to statements commonly made by vehicle manufacturers and technicians, no warning
lights were displayed at any time while operating on any of the blends of fuel. The data logging
computer monitors all warning light systems, and did not record any malfunction indicator lights
(MIL), diagnostic trouble code (DTC) lights, or emissions DTCs.
4) Another area that was of interest in the data logging computer’s recording was the short-term and
long-term fuel trim. The car’s computer has the ability to adjust the air/fuel ratio based on a too rich
or too lean mixture. In older model vehicles, it was assumed that the oxygen sensor caused a MIL
to be displayed when fuel with too much ethanol was used, as the oxygen sensor did not recognize
fuel with a much higher oxygen content. In all vehicles used, the long and short-term fuel trim
adjusted the air fuel ratios normally, and recorded all operation on all fuel blends as being within a
“normal” range.
5) Because of the short duration of the test, there was no investigation of whether there was less
engine wear due to using a lower BTU (cooler) fuel. An ACE member, who has been operating a
non-flex fuel vehicle on E85 since its purchase, has promised to allow the organization to
investigate that vehicle’s engine when it reaches 100,000 miles – possibly later this year.

---

OK...so I had a nice long response prepared, but my computer decided it didn't want to post it.

On that site you linked for the conversion article, there was a disclaimer at the bottom about " This is an at risk project ".

My car has over 195,000 miles on it, I could do the conversion for 500-600 bucks, but I also stand the risk of doing over 1000 dollars worth of damage to my engine.

That is an awful big risk considering that I could not afford to buy a newer car if that was to happen, nor do I have the 1000 bucks to replace my motor or have repairs done.

I have enough money in the bank to survive a couple of months if I was to lose my job, but not anything more than that. I simply cannot ( and will not ) take that money and get the conversion done. I cannot leave myself vulnerable like that. Especially considering how unpredictable the employment situation in this state is.

So I will continue to do what I have been doing. I keep up on the maintenance of my vehicle. It is as efficient as it can be for it being a 99 Saturn with over 195k miles. I could be driving something a whole lot worse, so I really don't feel all that bad.

You asked for real world viable options that was just one article that I found. It is very likely that he put the disclaimer on there for the same reasons everybody uses them...so they don't get sued if something were to go wrong.

It's interesting to note the information below which was from my original post about E-85 PAGE 7. I would also venture that the lower BTU content of E-85 should also cause less engine wear as engine heat causes thermal breakdown of oil which is the primary cause of engine wear and one of the main reasons that a manufacturer states to change engine oil every 3000 miles. If you take into account synthetics which have a longer life due to less thermal breakdown then the theory should hold.

3) Contrary to statements commonly made by vehicle manufacturers and technicians, no warning
lights were displayed at any time while operating on any of the blends of fuel. The data logging
computer monitors all warning light systems, and did not record any malfunction indicator lights
(MIL), diagnostic trouble code (DTC) lights, or emissions DTCs.
4) Another area that was of interest in the data logging computer’s recording was the short-term and
long-term fuel trim. The car’s computer has the ability to adjust the air/fuel ratio based on a too rich
or too lean mixture. In older model vehicles, it was assumed that the oxygen sensor caused a MIL
to be displayed when fuel with too much ethanol was used, as the oxygen sensor did not recognize
fuel with a much higher oxygen content. In all vehicles used, the long and short-term fuel trim
adjusted the air fuel ratios normally, and recorded all operation on all fuel blends as being within a
“normal” range.
5) Because of the short duration of the test, there was no investigation of whether there was less
engine wear due to using a lower BTU (cooler) fuel. An ACE member, who has been operating a
non-flex fuel vehicle on E85 since its purchase, has promised to allow the organization to
investigate that vehicle’s engine when it reaches 100,000 miles – possibly later this year.

If you remember correctly, I didn't ask for solutions. I said that any solutions that were supposed to be implemented would have to be viable for everyone.

Not everyone has the 500-600 bucks to convert their vehicle. Most people these days barely scrape by as it is.

Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't leave a whole lot of wriggle room for non essential things.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

OK...so I had a nice long response prepared, but my computer decided it didn't want to post it.

On that site you linked for the conversion article, there was a disclaimer at the bottom about " This is an at risk project ".

My car has over 195,000 miles on it, I could do the conversion for 500-600 bucks, but I also stand the risk of doing over 1000 dollars worth of damage to my engine.

That is an awful big risk considering that I could not afford to buy a newer car if that was to happen, nor do I have the 1000 bucks to replace my motor or have repairs done.

I have enough money in the bank to survive a couple of months if I was to lose my job, but not anything more than that. I simply cannot ( and will not ) take that money and get the conversion done. I cannot leave myself vulnerable like that. Especially considering how unpredictable the employment situation in this state is.

So I will continue to do what I have been doing. I keep up on the maintenance of my vehicle. It is as efficient as it can be for it being a 99 Saturn with over 195k miles. I could be driving something a whole lot worse, so I really don't feel all that bad.

My intent was not to make you feel bad, but rather to point out the common misconceptions that you raised nothing more. I also agree that your vehicle is getting much better fuel milage then most vehicles on the road. I commend you for making a wise decision as it were at the time of your purchase, both economically as it may have been for you at the time and environmentally as it is in hindsight. (knowing full well, Rush will jump all over that last statement as proof of life to his argument on economics) My point all along has been make the best and informed decision that you can...but Rush dragged me away from that with is posts which took my original statement out of context.

I truly thank you for bring up the issue that you did in your original post; as it has now brought the issue full circle from where it went astray.

---

OK...so I had a nice long response prepared, but my computer decided it didn't want to post it.

On that site you linked for the conversion article, there was a disclaimer at the bottom about " This is an at risk project ".

My car has over 195,000 miles on it, I could do the conversion for 500-600 bucks, but I also stand the risk of doing over 1000 dollars worth of damage to my engine.

That is an awful big risk considering that I could not afford to buy a newer car if that was to happen, nor do I have the 1000 bucks to replace my motor or have repairs done.

I have enough money in the bank to survive a couple of months if I was to lose my job, but not anything more than that. I simply cannot ( and will not ) take that money and get the conversion done. I cannot leave myself vulnerable like that. Especially considering how unpredictable the employment situation in this state is.

So I will continue to do what I have been doing. I keep up on the maintenance of my vehicle. It is as efficient as it can be for it being a 99 Saturn with over 195k miles. I could be driving something a whole lot worse, so I really don't feel all that bad.

You asked for real world viable options that was just one article that I found. It is very likely that he put the disclaimer on there for the same reasons everybody uses them...so they don't get sued if something were to go wrong.

It's interesting to note the information below which was from my original post about E-85 PAGE 7. I would also venture that the lower BTU content of E-85 should also cause less engine wear as engine heat causes thermal breakdown of oil which is the primary cause of engine wear and one of the main reasons that a manufacturer states to change engine oil every 3000 miles. If you take into account synthetics which have a longer life due to less thermal breakdown then the theory should hold.

3) Contrary to statements commonly made by vehicle manufacturers and technicians, no warning
lights were displayed at any time while operating on any of the blends of fuel. The data logging
computer monitors all warning light systems, and did not record any malfunction indicator lights
(MIL), diagnostic trouble code (DTC) lights, or emissions DTCs.
4) Another area that was of interest in the data logging computer’s recording was the short-term and
long-term fuel trim. The car’s computer has the ability to adjust the air/fuel ratio based on a too rich
or too lean mixture. In older model vehicles, it was assumed that the oxygen sensor caused a MIL
to be displayed when fuel with too much ethanol was used, as the oxygen sensor did not recognize
fuel with a much higher oxygen content. In all vehicles used, the long and short-term fuel trim
adjusted the air fuel ratios normally, and recorded all operation on all fuel blends as being within a
“normal” range.
5) Because of the short duration of the test, there was no investigation of whether there was less
engine wear due to using a lower BTU (cooler) fuel. An ACE member, who has been operating a
non-flex fuel vehicle on E85 since its purchase, has promised to allow the organization to
investigate that vehicle’s engine when it reaches 100,000 miles – possibly later this year.

If you remember correctly, I didn't ask for solutions. I said that any solutions that were supposed to be implemented would have to be viable for everyone.

Not everyone has the 500-600 bucks to convert their vehicle. Most people these days barely scrape by as it is.

Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't leave a whole lot of wriggle room for non essential things.

Point well made...but as I'm talking not just about this very moment but the future of where this technology is going I would also have to counter that while it may not be viable to all this very moment it will be their better economic choice when the tipping point is reached and gasoline becomes more costly then E-85 or it's like. At that point $500-$600 will seem cheap in comparison...or if a time comes where emissions controls make it cheaper then replacing their trusty '99 Saturn.

---

Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

Sheesh. I didn't take your statement out of context to mislead anyone, I simply didn't post the entire thing because I wasn't replying to all of it. The original post is still there.

But to be clear, your further information doesn't counter my point--which was that everything you want people to do, they would do almost automatically and without thinking if it made economic sense to them. You just wrote a paragraph about the increased use of ethanol.

The increased use of ethanol has severe problems also. The source for ethanol is corn, which though renewable, is a finite resource just like every other resource in the world.

Increased demand for ethanol is already starting to raise the price for corn. This is leading to increased prices for product ranging from tortillas to Fritos. And with the President calling for US Government vehicles to use ethanol blends, the dramatically increased demand for corn will cause the price to skyrocket.

Because of the increased demand, farmers will start getting better returns on yield for corn. This will lead to farmers planting corn rather than soybeans, wheat or other crops, leading to lower production of those other crops. Less wheat and soybeans means higher prices on products ranging from bread to tofurkeys.

Corn requires far more water than wheat or soybeans and because farmers will be planting more corn in locations where there is not sufficient rainfall to grow the crop, the strain on water resources will grow. And who can blame poor third world farmers for wanting to make a better living?

This is only considering the costs associated with current 15% to 20% gasoline-ethanol blends. If an alternative fuel such as E85, with 80% ethanol, is brought into the picture then the previous points are greatly increased and have to include the costs of converting existing gasoling engines over to E85 use and increased vehicle costs related to massive retooling of automotive production lines.

---

OK...so I had a nice long response prepared, but my computer decided it didn't want to post it.

On that site you linked for the conversion article, there was a disclaimer at the bottom about " This is an at risk project ".

My car has over 195,000 miles on it, I could do the conversion for 500-600 bucks, but I also stand the risk of doing over 1000 dollars worth of damage to my engine.

That is an awful big risk considering that I could not afford to buy a newer car if that was to happen, nor do I have the 1000 bucks to replace my motor or have repairs done.

I have enough money in the bank to survive a couple of months if I was to lose my job, but not anything more than that. I simply cannot ( and will not ) take that money and get the conversion done. I cannot leave myself vulnerable like that. Especially considering how unpredictable the employment situation in this state is.

So I will continue to do what I have been doing. I keep up on the maintenance of my vehicle. It is as efficient as it can be for it being a 99 Saturn with over 195k miles. I could be driving something a whole lot worse, so I really don't feel all that bad.

You asked for real world viable options that was just one article that I found. It is very likely that he put the disclaimer on there for the same reasons everybody uses them...so they don't get sued if something were to go wrong.

It's interesting to note the information below which was from my original post about E-85 PAGE 7. I would also venture that the lower BTU content of E-85 should also cause less engine wear as engine heat causes thermal breakdown of oil which is the primary cause of engine wear and one of the main reasons that a manufacturer states to change engine oil every 3000 miles. If you take into account synthetics which have a longer life due to less thermal breakdown then the theory should hold.

3) Contrary to statements commonly made by vehicle manufacturers and technicians, no warning
lights were displayed at any time while operating on any of the blends of fuel. The data logging
computer monitors all warning light systems, and did not record any malfunction indicator lights
(MIL), diagnostic trouble code (DTC) lights, or emissions DTCs.
4) Another area that was of interest in the data logging computer’s recording was the short-term and
long-term fuel trim. The car’s computer has the ability to adjust the air/fuel ratio based on a too rich
or too lean mixture. In older model vehicles, it was assumed that the oxygen sensor caused a MIL
to be displayed when fuel with too much ethanol was used, as the oxygen sensor did not recognize
fuel with a much higher oxygen content. In all vehicles used, the long and short-term fuel trim
adjusted the air fuel ratios normally, and recorded all operation on all fuel blends as being within a
“normal” range.
5) Because of the short duration of the test, there was no investigation of whether there was less
engine wear due to using a lower BTU (cooler) fuel. An ACE member, who has been operating a
non-flex fuel vehicle on E85 since its purchase, has promised to allow the organization to
investigate that vehicle’s engine when it reaches 100,000 miles – possibly later this year.

If you remember correctly, I didn't ask for solutions. I said that any solutions that were supposed to be implemented would have to be viable for everyone.

Not everyone has the 500-600 bucks to convert their vehicle. Most people these days barely scrape by as it is.

Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't leave a whole lot of wriggle room for non essential things.

Point well made...but as I'm talking not just about this very moment but the future of where this technology is going I would also have to counter that while it may not be viable to all this very moment it will be their better economic choice when the tipping point is reached and gasoline becomes more costly then E-85 or it's like. At that point $500-$600 will seem cheap in comparison...or if a time comes where emissions controls make it cheaper then replacing their trusty '99 Saturn.

But ummmmm.......

In the references to the problems ( as I have read them ) it seems that most of the advocates of making big changes are looking for them to happen in a big hurry.

As far as that " tipping point " you refer to...I think it's going to take quite a while before enough companies start producing enough Ethanol to make it a viable replacement for gasoline. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's going to take a lot longer than people hope it will.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

Sheesh. I didn't take your statement out of context to mislead anyone, I simply didn't post the entire thing because I wasn't replying to all of it. The original post is still there.

But to be clear, your further information doesn't counter my point--which was that everything you want people to do, they would do almost automatically and without thinking if it made economic sense to them. You just wrote a paragraph about the increased use of ethanol.

The increased use of ethanol has severe problems also. The source for ethanol is corn, which though renewable, is a finite resource just like every other resource in the world.

Increased demand for ethanol is already starting to raise the price for corn. This is leading to increased prices for product ranging from tortillas to Fritos. And with the President calling for US Government vehicles to use ethanol blends, the dramatically increased demand for corn will cause the price to skyrocket.

Because of the increased demand, farmers will start getting better returns on yield for corn. This will lead to farmers planting corn rather than soybeans, wheat or other crops, leading to lower production of those other crops. Less wheat and soybeans means higher prices on products ranging from bread to tofurkeys.

Corn requires far more water than wheat or soybeans and because farmers will be planting more corn in locations where there is not sufficient rainfall to grow the crop, the strain on water resources will grow. And who can blame poor third world farmers for wanting to make a better living?

This is only considering the costs associated with current 15% to 20% gasoline-ethanol blends. If an alternative fuel such as E85, with 80% ethanol, is brought into the picture then the previous points are greatly increased and have to include the costs of converting existing gasoling engines over to E85 use and increased vehicle costs related to massive retooling of automotive production lines.

Ah the single minded approach...well ethanol can come from many things including but not limited to sugar, corn, various grains, and cellulose which has proven to give the best return yet. Basically if you can ferment it then you can use it....oh and by the way soybeans and corn are grown in rotation on the same land receiving the same average rain fall...so supply of water not an issue unless you are trying to grow them in an arid location which would be less suited there as a cash crop thus less likely to be an issue.

---

OK...so I had a nice long response prepared, but my computer decided it didn't want to post it.

On that site you linked for the conversion article, there was a disclaimer at the bottom about " This is an at risk project ".

My car has over 195,000 miles on it, I could do the conversion for 500-600 bucks, but I also stand the risk of doing over 1000 dollars worth of damage to my engine.

That is an awful big risk considering that I could not afford to buy a newer car if that was to happen, nor do I have the 1000 bucks to replace my motor or have repairs done.

I have enough money in the bank to survive a couple of months if I was to lose my job, but not anything more than that. I simply cannot ( and will not ) take that money and get the conversion done. I cannot leave myself vulnerable like that. Especially considering how unpredictable the employment situation in this state is.

So I will continue to do what I have been doing. I keep up on the maintenance of my vehicle. It is as efficient as it can be for it being a 99 Saturn with over 195k miles. I could be driving something a whole lot worse, so I really don't feel all that bad.

You asked for real world viable options that was just one article that I found. It is very likely that he put the disclaimer on there for the same reasons everybody uses them...so they don't get sued if something were to go wrong.

It's interesting to note the information below which was from my original post about E-85 PAGE 7. I would also venture that the lower BTU content of E-85 should also cause less engine wear as engine heat causes thermal breakdown of oil which is the primary cause of engine wear and one of the main reasons that a manufacturer states to change engine oil every 3000 miles. If you take into account synthetics which have a longer life due to less thermal breakdown then the theory should hold.

3) Contrary to statements commonly made by vehicle manufacturers and technicians, no warning
lights were displayed at any time while operating on any of the blends of fuel. The data logging
computer monitors all warning light systems, and did not record any malfunction indicator lights
(MIL), diagnostic trouble code (DTC) lights, or emissions DTCs.
4) Another area that was of interest in the data logging computer’s recording was the short-term and
long-term fuel trim. The car’s computer has the ability to adjust the air/fuel ratio based on a too rich
or too lean mixture. In older model vehicles, it was assumed that the oxygen sensor caused a MIL
to be displayed when fuel with too much ethanol was used, as the oxygen sensor did not recognize
fuel with a much higher oxygen content. In all vehicles used, the long and short-term fuel trim
adjusted the air fuel ratios normally, and recorded all operation on all fuel blends as being within a
“normal” range.
5) Because of the short duration of the test, there was no investigation of whether there was less
engine wear due to using a lower BTU (cooler) fuel. An ACE member, who has been operating a
non-flex fuel vehicle on E85 since its purchase, has promised to allow the organization to
investigate that vehicle’s engine when it reaches 100,000 miles – possibly later this year.

If you remember correctly, I didn't ask for solutions. I said that any solutions that were supposed to be implemented would have to be viable for everyone.

Not everyone has the 500-600 bucks to convert their vehicle. Most people these days barely scrape by as it is.

Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't leave a whole lot of wriggle room for non essential things.

Point well made...but as I'm talking not just about this very moment but the future of where this technology is going I would also have to counter that while it may not be viable to all this very moment it will be their better economic choice when the tipping point is reached and gasoline becomes more costly then E-85 or it's like. At that point $500-$600 will seem cheap in comparison...or if a time comes where emissions controls make it cheaper then replacing their trusty '99 Saturn.

But ummmmm.......

In the references to the problems ( as I have read them ) it seems that most of the advocates of making big changes are looking for them to happen in a big hurry.

Well change is always slow as we all know but it compounds itself if the right conditions are met as my earlier post on Brazil will illustrate...they went thirty years and their change happened rapidly in the last 3-4 years when the correct technology presented itself.

As far as that " tipping point " you refer to...I think it's going to take quite a while before enough companies start producing enough Ethanol to make it a viable replacement for gasoline. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's going to take a lot longer than people hope it will.

I think a way to solve that issue is this reduce imports of oil and begin to increase imports of ethanol from brazil while we work to increase domestic production...this allows progression into the market place slowly so as not to drop the bottom out of ethanol and not to raise oil too much...slowly at first to build demand for it then you start to lessen the imports of ethanol slowly creating a larger demand for the void to be filled while maintaining the oil imports and it will cause a short term shortage driving more companies to invest into the market to capitalize on the demand and potential revenue. At the same time the government is doing this delicate ballet of economics (basically market fixing also known as regulation) they should be offering incentives to entice companies to enter the market. All this should be done with a time table for implementation. The trick here is increasing one without killing the other too quickly making a stepped approach. This doesn't grant instant energy independence but it does set the machinery in motion...it also speeds the use of the alternative fuel which in-turn gets us to the goal of reducing carbon emmissions faster.

Just for you KM how about a tax credit for converting your vehical to the new technology. It will work best by way, as someone put it earlier of bringing science, government, and the consumer together working tward a common goal.

---

Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

Sheesh. I didn't take your statement out of context to mislead anyone, I simply didn't post the entire thing because I wasn't replying to all of it. The original post is still there.

But to be clear, your further information doesn't counter my point--which was that everything you want people to do, they would do almost automatically and without thinking if it made economic sense to them. You just wrote a paragraph about the increased use of ethanol.

The increased use of ethanol has severe problems also. The source for ethanol is corn, which though renewable, is a finite resource just like every other resource in the world.

Increased demand for ethanol is already starting to raise the price for corn. This is leading to increased prices for product ranging from tortillas to Fritos. And with the President calling for US Government vehicles to use ethanol blends, the dramatically increased demand for corn will cause the price to skyrocket.

Because of the increased demand, farmers will start getting better returns on yield for corn. This will lead to farmers planting corn rather than soybeans, wheat or other crops, leading to lower production of those other crops. Less wheat and soybeans means higher prices on products ranging from bread to tofurkeys.

Corn requires far more water than wheat or soybeans and because farmers will be planting more corn in locations where there is not sufficient rainfall to grow the crop, the strain on water resources will grow. And who can blame poor third world farmers for wanting to make a better living?

This is only considering the costs associated with current 15% to 20% gasoline-ethanol blends. If an alternative fuel such as E85, with 80% ethanol, is brought into the picture then the previous points are greatly increased and have to include the costs of converting existing gasoling engines over to E85 use and increased vehicle costs related to massive retooling of automotive production lines.

Ah the single minded approach...well ethanol can come from many things including but not limited to sugar, corn, various grains, and cellulose which has proven to give the best return yet. Basically if you can ferment it then you can use it....oh and by the way soybeans and corn are grown in rotation on the same land receiving the same average rain fall...so supply of water not an issue unless you are trying to grow them in an arid location which would be less suited there as a cash crop thus less likely to be an issue.

Arid is a relative term when talking about corn production. In the US the areas that get enough annual rainfall for non-irrigated corn production center on Iowa and Indiana, but not much farther. Because corn gives, by far, the greatest yield per acre, corn production extends well beyond that area and an extensive body of research is available on how to maximize corn yield with limited water resources. Soybeans need less water than corn and are more drought resistant, but do not give the high yields and are therefore the less desireable crop. A farmer raising corn for ethanol production need not concern himself with any "organic" issues. This means that if corn prices rise high enough it becomes economically feasible for the farmer to use fertilizer and not concern himself with strict crop rotation.

The reason that corn will, at least initially, be the major source of ethanol is that the technology is in place and familiar. Companies like Iogen show promise for the high returns you talk about above, but any major investment will still involve risks that need to be justified. As Rush says, it's all about the economics.

My approach is not single minded, but my point was focused on ethanol production/use and was intended to illustrate that ethanol use has as many disadvantages as advantages and cannot be considered in isolation due to far ranging effects of resource reallocation related to increased demand and use.

Well change is always slow as we all know but it compounds itself if the right conditions are met as my earlier post on Brazil will illustrate...they went thirty years and their change happened rapidly in the last 3-4 years when the correct technology presented itself.

As far as that " tipping point " you refer to...I think it's going to take quite a while before enough companies start producing enough Ethanol to make it a viable replacement for gasoline. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's going to take a lot longer than people hope it will.

I think a way to solve that issue is this reduce imports of oil and begin to increase imports of ethanol from brazil while we work to increase domestic production...this allows progression into the market place slowly so as not to drop the bottom out of ethanol and not to raise oil too much...slowly at first to build demand for it then you start to lessen the imports of ethanol slowly creating a larger demand for the void to be filled while maintaining the oil imports and it will cause a short term shortage driving more companies to invest into the market to capitalize on the demand and potential revenue. At the same time the government is doing this delicate ballet of economics (basically market fixing also known as regulation) they should be offering incentives to entice companies to enter the market. All this should be done with a time table for implementation. The trick here is increasing one without killing the other too quickly making a stepped approach. This doesn't grant instant energy independence but it does set the machinery in motion...it also speeds the use of the alternative fuel which in-turn gets us to the goal of reducing carbon emmissions faster.

Just for you KM how about a tax credit for converting your vehical to the new technology. It will work best by way, as someone put it earlier of bringing science, government, and the consumer together working tward a common goal.

But now you are talking about the United States Government pulling off a serious balancing act.

How many people do you know that actually have enough faith in our current government to pull off something like that?

The tax credit would have to be enough to pay me back for the expense. Not just 25 or 50% of the cost.

* Side note * the plant that we are looking at converting would use sugar beets for Ethanol production. Not corn.

Well change is always slow as we all know but it compounds itself if the right conditions are met as my earlier post on Brazil will illustrate...they went thirty years and their change happened rapidly in the last 3-4 years when the correct technology presented itself.

As far as that " tipping point " you refer to...I think it's going to take quite a while before enough companies start producing enough Ethanol to make it a viable replacement for gasoline. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's going to take a lot longer than people hope it will.

I think a way to solve that issue is this reduce imports of oil and begin to increase imports of ethanol from brazil while we work to increase domestic production...this allows progression into the market place slowly so as not to drop the bottom out of ethanol and not to raise oil too much...slowly at first to build demand for it then you start to lessen the imports of ethanol slowly creating a larger demand for the void to be filled while maintaining the oil imports and it will cause a short term shortage driving more companies to invest into the market to capitalize on the demand and potential revenue. At the same time the government is doing this delicate ballet of economics (basically market fixing also known as regulation) they should be offering incentives to entice companies to enter the market. All this should be done with a time table for implementation. The trick here is increasing one without killing the other too quickly making a stepped approach. This doesn't grant instant energy independence but it does set the machinery in motion...it also speeds the use of the alternative fuel which in-turn gets us to the goal of reducing carbon emissions faster.

Just for you KM how about a tax credit for converting your vehicle to the new technology. It will work best by way, as someone put it earlier of bringing science, government, and the consumer together working toward a common goal.

But now you are talking about the United States Government pulling off a serious balancing act.

How many people do you know that actually have enough faith in our current government to pull off something like that?

That's true...but since we are talking about something that people don't normally concern themselves with...ergo the prior conversation on being informed...it is likely that the process to get there would go largely unnoticed. Either way if it gets the job done then it gets the job done.

---

Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

Sheesh. I didn't take your statement out of context to mislead anyone, I simply didn't post the entire thing because I wasn't replying to all of it. The original post is still there.

But to be clear, your further information doesn't counter my point--which was that everything you want people to do, they would do almost automatically and without thinking if it made economic sense to them. You just wrote a paragraph about the increased use of ethanol.

The increased use of ethanol has severe problems also. The source for ethanol is corn, which though renewable, is a finite resource just like every other resource in the world.

Increased demand for ethanol is already starting to raise the price for corn. This is leading to increased prices for product ranging from tortillas to Fritos. And with the President calling for US Government vehicles to use ethanol blends, the dramatically increased demand for corn will cause the price to skyrocket.

Because of the increased demand, farmers will start getting better returns on yield for corn. This will lead to farmers planting corn rather than soybeans, wheat or other crops, leading to lower production of those other crops. Less wheat and soybeans means higher prices on products ranging from bread to tofurkeys.

Corn requires far more water than wheat or soybeans and because farmers will be planting more corn in locations where there is not sufficient rainfall to grow the crop, the strain on water resources will grow. And who can blame poor third world farmers for wanting to make a better living?

This is only considering the costs associated with current 15% to 20% gasoline-ethanol blends. If an alternative fuel such as E85, with 80% ethanol, is brought into the picture then the previous points are greatly increased and have to include the costs of converting existing gasoling engines over to E85 use and increased vehicle costs related to massive retooling of automotive production lines.

Ah the single minded approach...well ethanol can come from many things including but not limited to sugar, corn, various grains, and cellulose which has proven to give the best return yet. Basically if you can ferment it then you can use it....oh and by the way soybeans and corn are grown in rotation on the same land receiving the same average rain fall...so supply of water not an issue unless you are trying to grow them in an arid location which would be less suited there as a cash crop thus less likely to be an issue.

Arid is a relative term when talking about corn production. In the US the areas that get enough annual rainfall for non-irrigated corn production center on Iowa and Indiana, but not much farther. Because corn gives, by far, the greatest yield per acre, corn production extends well beyond that area and an extensive body of research is available on how to maximize corn yield with limited water resources. Soybeans need less water than corn and are more drought resistant, but do not give the high yields and are therefore the less desireable crop. A farmer raising corn for ethanol production need not concern himself with any "organic" issues. This means that if corn prices rise high enough it becomes economically feasible for the farmer to use fertilizer and not concern himself with strict crop rotation.

The reason that corn will, at least initially, be the major source of ethanol is that the technology is in place and familiar. Companies like Iogen show promise for the high returns you talk about above, but any major investment will still involve risks that need to be justified. As Rush says, it's all about the economics.

My approach is not single minded, but my point was focused on ethanol production/use and was intended to illustrate that ethanol use has as many disadvantages as advantages and cannot be considered in isolation due to far ranging effects of resource reallocation related to increased demand and use.

If you don't like corn then use cellulose which is basically plant fiber where they get a better return anyway. I mean really harvest the ditches of Iowa. Seriously take a look at how much cellulose is produced in a corn field compared to the volume of corn and then the production value and it becomes evident that you wouldn't have to change or disrupt the production of the corn crop to see a gain in ethanol. Farmers could also harvest cellulose as a secondary cash crop.

---

My point is Rush that while economics is a big factor in how the world operates, and I don't contest that. I do believe that people also hide behind it to a great degree.

Maybe, but that’s ambiguous and the other side often hides from economics. For example, the environmentalist wacko crowd has been demanding zero emissions vehicles since the beginning of time. Yet they never quite understood that nothing was stopping them from providing such vehicles. But they didn't. Oops!

Up until recently, the economics of building them was prohibitive and so GM, Honda, et cetera didn’t do it. Funnily enough, should Dirt First! actually had tried to produce such cars, the same economic flaws with them would have prevented Dirt First! from doing so as well. Unless, they made a breakthrough. More power to them, but they didn’t even bother to try.

Surprise, surprise. It seems they really hate big business but are utterly dependent on said businesses to provide the products they need. That’s inconsistent and hypocritical.

Industry also hides behind the status quo as well. Take for instance what KM said above about buying an e85 capable car. Simply put the technology isn't a restrictive factor anymore...I don't speak in terms of instantaneous change as he stated he drives a used car...well that's great and it works for him now (it sure gets better milage then some vehicles out there on the road that are brand new) but when his used car wears out and he is in the market for a new or newer used car it becomes his choice to either spend his money on a car capable of burning e85 or a car which only runs on gasoline. He has to make that choice...again there is no great difference in the price of the vehicle at this point only a difference in the potential impact on the environment. Even you can't argue with that because e85 vehicles are also fully capable of using regular gasoline without ethanol for the time being till e85 becomes less expensive, though that doesn't help the environment immediately. I therefore removed the argument of economics from making this decision and it becomes more of a moral debate.

It may become a moral debate to you, but you would have to present argument why that is true—you have not. But you haven’t removed economics from this decision either, because people make decisions for themselves. Freedom, in this case, means that people are free to buy whatever vehicle they wish, according to whatever values are important to them at the time. Freedom does not involve what you think they should do being forced upon them.

I have no problem with anyone putting any vehicle for sale from a zero emissions 7 series to a Unimog. I have no problem with e85 vehicles. I have no problem with people advocating that others buy them. I do, however, have a problem with using or advocating gov’t force to make others do what they otherwise would not.

Likewise he stated there aren't a lot of stations selling e85 right now. I can guarantee that if there was enough political pressure and oil companies were to find it in their best interest to develop more ethanol plants…

Ain’t that grand, you want to stick guns in people’s faces to make them do things that you yourself are unwilling to do. Which, of course, actually is a moral dilemma because it involves the initiation of force against others. When is it OK to use force against others to have them do as you wish? And, if you agree that it is OK to do when you agree with it, then you can understand that those others may then use force against you. When they agree with it. What a wonderful way to organize society.

…then you would see the industry shift (like KM's company), and quickly; which would cause the gasoline to become more expensive and ethanol to become cheaper. Simple law of supply and demand. Too many people think that to make changes they have to do without. This seems to be your major argument with making change. This is simply not always true...they simply have to make better choices...yes it may cost a bit more to do that at times but not always.

My argument is very simple: you do not have the right to force people to change simply because you think they should. Much like they do not have right to force you to change simply because they think you should. How you define "better" is irrelevant to them, just as how they define “better” is irrelevant to you. More accurately, if you freely choose to provide alternatives that make more economic sense than the decisions people presently make, you’ll get what you want them to do, overwhelmingly, with almost no dissent, and without using force. That is the moral position because no one has to think as you do.

Even when it does cost them more to do, they will usually see a return on their money (see hybrid vehicles which fill up a tank half as much and have a tank two thirds the size of a standard japanese car). Lets use your cost benefit analysis to examine this. A hybrid vehicle costs not much more then your average car and in some cases less. Benefit the driver winds up using much less gas to go the same distance which in this day and age makes a huge difference, there by putting money back into the drivers pocket which in-turn pays for the car very quickly. Likewise the driver then is able to take the money saved and reinvest it or better yet spend it on other things that benefit the environment. Just think, two tanks of gas saved per year per person in the US would be capable of not only saving a lot of pollution into the environment but also would be capable of providing money for the "cure" that we talked about earlier with Misfit's post.

Each individual driver will have to make that decision for themselves. The hybrids today are hauling around huge sets of batteries that are heavy and difficult for the tiny gasoline engine to carry efficiently. If they aren’t doing nearly 100% city driving, stop and go, all of the time, they do not get the benefit of the regenerative braking, the batteries quickly drain, and the little gasoline engine has to haul those batteries around at highway speeds--which is an inefficient use of energy regardless of the blend of gasoline. Not that I care which choice they make, that is up to them. But neither do the savings “pay for the car very quickly,” as most of the mileage claims made by the manufacturers are overstated.

Keep in mind, not everyone agrees with ethanol. There isn’t as much energy in ethanol as there is in gasoline, and creating significant amounts of energy from food crops depletes the amount of land available for actual food. To some, growing corn changing it into a gallon of ethanol requires more energy than is in the gallon of ethanol, which is a net loss. Some others think there’s only a small gain in energy in creating ethanol. Either way, it’s not a panacea.

It also has another benefit of causing the oil industry to take notice because less demand for their product will equal lower prices at the pump. When the oil industry isn't making as much you can rest assured that they will look into making a profit in other ways, and will suddenly find the money to produce new products like e85. So it's not so much that we have to reinvent the wheel but rather we have to reinvent peoples perspectives. Change does not typically happen over night but a grassroots movement of people can have a huge impact. Even one person making a change has an effect when combined with other individuals who also are intent on change. Call it social engineering for global change of the environment. The best part is like I said before...it's already happening...it only needs to happen faster.

Eh, who cares about this stuff? You seem to be laboring under the false impression that I am against solving the problem, or that I am defeatist about it, or that I care what actions you take to prevent your catastrophes. I’m not.

You’re free. Do whatever you wish. Engineer all the grassroots movements you wish. Hug trees, eat granola, polish your Birkenstocks, teach people to cut emissions, sell zero emissions cars, teach people to install constant flow water heaters, convince Home Depot to feature them prominently in their stores with a easily understandable economic analysis of why they are better. Go nuts. You can do it all with my blessing and it makes sense. If you actually want to cut emissions, I would focus on the Home Depot stuff over the hugging trees stuff, but you are free to choose as you will.

But do not advocate gov’t force against me to pay for your ideas. If your ideas are good, people will line up to use them. If your ideas aren’t good, or they’re expensive, or speculative, those same people will run for the hills and rightfully so. Just like China, India, and Mexico did. They don't want to pay for your ideas either. And since you exempted them, they won't.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You’re free. Do whatever you wish. Engineer all the grassroots movements you wish. Hug trees, eat granola, polish your Birkenstocks, teach people to cut emissions, sell zero emissions cars, teach people to install constant flow water heaters, convince Home Depot to feature them prominently in their stores with a easily understandable economic analysis of why they are better. Go nuts. You can do it all with my blessing and it makes sense. If you actually want to cut emissions, I would focus on the Home Depot stuff over the hugging trees stuff, but you are free to choose as you will.

But do not advocate gov’t force against me to pay for your ideas. If your ideas are good, people will line up to use them. If your ideas aren’t good, or they’re expensive, or speculative, those same people will run for the hills and rightfully so. Just like China, India, and Mexico did. They don't want to pay for your ideas either. And since you exempted them, they won't.

All fine and good and good for freedom eh?

Go stick your head in the sand and snort "Liberty" and "Freedom" if you wish.

Sorry, but you will not be having a 'choice' sooner than you think... It will cost you far far far more if you do insist on keeping your head buried...

Take a look through Global Warming videos: What Truth?! and please comment.

What's the more expensive or the more impossible?

Aside: Do you agree with unrestriced/unfettered corporate monopolies?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)