A few observations about ethanol. SOme may be fact, some opinion.

As an alternative to gasoline, and to "break the oil addiction" ethanol has been proposed as an alternative fuel. YIKES!!!!

First the pro (as I have been told):
Ethanol may jelp to reduce the dependency on foreign oil. Perhaps...
Ethanol is a cleaner fuel.
Ethanol comes from renewable resources. Maybe...

Now the con ( and I DO MEAN con!):
Ethanol is corrosive. It can and will damage the internal parts of your fuel system. This is very apparent in the boating community. Apparently the reaction with 2-stroke oil enhances the corrosive nature of ethanol.

Ethanol has a tremendous affinity for water. It will absorb water from the atmosphere. This can be a problem in all but the driest of climates. The result ends up being a fuel that will no longer burn.

Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline or diesel fuel. This will translate to crummy fuel mileage. If you were getting 20 mpg, you will be lucky to get 15 with ethanol.

Is ethanol really from a renewable source?? Unfortunately, it takes nearly as much petroleum energy to produce ethanol as it returns in the form of usable fuel. Not a good trade IMHO.

The cost of food. Resources used to produce ethanol are coming directly from our food supply in several forms. Corn that would be used for food and animal feed is being diverted to ethanol production. Applying the supply vs. demand formula, that becomes higher food prices for everyone. Also, since most meat is fed from the same corn, meats will cost more. Also, production of other crops such as soybeans is being abandoned in favor of raising corn. Once again, supply vs demand will cause higher prices across the board for non-corn crops. Once again, higher food prices.

People, we are being scammed. The only thing that ethanol has ever powered efficiently is a political campaign.

Is ethanol a good alternative fuel?? I think not.

Thank you for reading this.

Also, going to ethanol does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. It does nothing for the environment. In fact, studies have shown that burning ethanol, by the time you take into account processing it and burning it, it produces over 150% as much CO2 as simply burning gasoline.

We need to go to hemp paper and use the byproduct of wood milling and paper milling to produce ethanol. It's doable. Also, you can crush the hemp seed and pour the oil right into your diesel engine. While at the same time developing an alternative fuel. At present, our best hope is hydrogen in some form. Why aren't we putting literally billions into this effort?

http://www.jwiwood.com/faq/conversion.html

Nice post el bandido

[QUOTE=Project2501;717613]Also, going to ethanol does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. It does nothing for the environment. In fact, studies have shown that burning ethanol, by the time you take into account processing it and burning it, it produces over 150% as much CO2 as simply burning gasoline.

Wherever did the notion of CO2 as a pollutant come from??? Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of LIFE. We exhale with every breath. It is generated by decaying vegetable matter (like last year's fallen leaves). It comes as a byproduct of almost every part of existence. ALso, it is the food from which plants generate oxygen to replenish our atmosphere. It provides the means for maple trees (and others to a lesser extent) to produce the sugar contained in the syrup we put on our waffles and pancakes. It is responsible for the fructose found in that nice juicy peach, strawberry, or apple that keeps us alive. HOW on EARTH did it become a pollutant?????

Also, I might make note of the scientifically proven fact that 98% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is generated NATURALLY by mother Earth herself, and NOT by mankind.

This whole "carbon" and "CO2" thing seems to be generated by those who would have us living in caves and eating grass and leaves for sustenance. Give up your cars, houses, jobs, and anything else that this modern world has to offer, and you might make the environmentalists happy.

P. S. Hydrogen might make a good fuel, but the technology requires a LOT of energy to produce currently. Also, there are special handling requirements. As a liquid, Hydrogen is VERY cold, and must be kept that way. In gaseous form, it is incredible flammable - to the point of being explosive. Remember the Hindenburg?

Too much CO2 takes the place of O2 that isn't a good thing, trees are disappearing so less co2 being taken out of the air

[QUOTE=Project2501;717613]Also, going to ethanol does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. It does nothing for the environment. In fact, studies have shown that burning ethanol, by the time you take into account processing it and burning it, it produces over 150% as much CO2 as simply burning gasoline.

Wherever did the notion of CO2 as a pollutant come from??? Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of LIFE. We exhale with every breath. It is generated by decaying vegetable matter (like last year's fallen leaves). It comes as a byproduct of almost every part of existence. ALso, it is the food from which plants generate oxygen to replenish our atmosphere. It provides the means for maple trees (and others to a lesser extent) to produce the sugar contained in the syrup we put on our waffles and pancakes. It is responsible for the fructose found in that nice juicy peach, strawberry, or apple that keeps us alive. HOW on EARTH did it become a pollutant?????

Also, I might make note of the scientifically proven fact that 98% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is generated NATURALLY by mother Earth herself, and NOT by mankind.

This whole "carbon" and "CO2" thing seems to be generated by those who would have us living in caves and eating grass and leaves for sustenance. Give up your cars, houses, jobs, and anything else that this modern world has to offer, and you might make the environmentalists happy.

P. S. Hydrogen might make a good fuel, but the technology requires a LOT of energy to produce currently. Also, there are special handling requirements. As a liquid, Hydrogen is VERY cold, and must be kept that way. In gaseous form, it is incredible flammable - to the point of being explosive. Remember the Hindenburg?

I know where CO2 comes from. Plants breath it and exhale O2. Watch "An Inconvienent Truth". CO2 levels are directly correlated with the earths temperature is why CO2, at current levels, most certainly is a pollutant.

As far as hydrogen goes, what if there was a way to extract the H from H2O? Then the exaust would be 02. Hydrogen doesn't necessarily have to be stored or used in gaseous form, just burned that way.

First don't assume that all carbon dioxide is bad and should be curtailed. In fact, Carbon Dioxide is essential to life itself since it forms a part of the natural cycle called the Carbon cycle. Carbon Dioxide is an essential ingredient in the photosynthetic process of plants

CO2 + H2O + sunlight -----> glucose(sugar) + Oxygen

In order for nature to supply this carbon dioxide it must be produced by respiration which both plants and animals undergo:

glucose + Oxygen ------> CO2 + H2O

As long as other intervening factors do not insert themselves, this balance is maintained. Unfortunately, industrialization and deforestation (to name only two factors) have contributed to an imbalance resulting in a gradual increase of the total Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Many industrial processes involve the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum fuels.

In addition, a more sinister product of incomplete combustion occurs when the combustible fuel does not receive enough Oxygen gas. This product is Carbon Monoxide. It is considered toxic. The effects of the toxicity will depend upon the concentration and length of exposure. The symptoms of mild toxicity are nausea, headaches, irritability. Chronic toxicity will result in loss of consciousness, and eventually death. The reason Carbon Monoxide is so dangerous is because it has a complex with Hemoglobin that is more stable than the complex formed between Oxygen and Hemoglobin. With the presence of Carbon Monoxide, Oxygen is blocked from forming the hemoglobin complex. This prevents the Oxygen from reaching the body's cells resulting in oxygen depletion. Eventually at higher concentrations the brain cells have Oxygen depletion and loss of consciousness, coma, and eventually (if not corrected) death. The only reversal to this condition is to reach the victim in time and to administer large doses of Oxygen rich air into the victim's lungs. This could have the effect of reversing the favorable Carbon Monoxide complexation with Hemoglobin.

In addition, man's desire to develop land without replacing the natural plant resources that must be removed for land development has resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of trees on the earth. A tree undergoing photosynthesis will be a major contributor to reducing the carbon dioxide and replenishing the Oxygen supply. Removal of these trees will slowly have an effect by increasing the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and decreasing the Oxygen.

A phenomenon known as desertization (creation of deserts) occurs as a side effect when forests are destroyed. It is said that the great Sahara Desert was once a lush green area. Both industrialization, use of the internal combustion machines and deforestation will increase CO2.

What effect does increased CO2 have?

It will affect our sea levels and our weather patterns and could ironically introduce a new ice age prematurely. This is sometimes called the greenhouse effect.

The CO2 increase in the atmosphere will result in more radiation remaining on the earth. This increase in Infrared energy will have a warming effect on the earth's surface over a period of time. This is gradual to be sure, but it really does not take a real large increase in the body temperature of the earth to cause the ice caps to begin melting at a faster rate. This will do at least four things:


1. It could increase significantly the sea levels on the coastal regions thereby flooding all coastal regions and changing the land mass area significantly. This would affect many world centers negatively.

2. It could decrease the ice caps thereby reducing the ability of the ice caps to reflect further radiation out into space.

3. It could increase the water surface area and the amount of liquid water which will absorb more energy causing a counteractive "cooling" trend (ie:ice age phenomenon)

4. It could alter the weather patterns thus changing the weather zones. The tropic zone will move north. The temperater zone further toward the poles. This could result in a further reduction in the polar ice caps.

[QUOTE=jimg.allentown;717734]

I know where CO2 comes from. Plants breath it and exhale O2. Watch "An Inconvienent Truth". CO2 levels are directly correlated with the earths temperature is why CO2, at current levels, most certainly is a pollutant.

As far as hydrogen goes, what if there was a way to extract the H from H2O? Then the exaust would be 02. Hydrogen doesn't necessarily have to be stored or used in gaseous form, just burned that way.

Al Gore's "documentary"? Since when does a professional politician become an expert on meteorology? Just to put things into perspective....

The people that are telling us about this terrible impending "crisis" are doing so while driving Hummers and traveling around by private jets. Al Gore uses more electricity in one month than I do in 10 years!!

I present the following for discussion:

Sewage treatment plants flare off their gases that are produced by decomposing sewage. This gas is very similar in composition to natural gas - which is a usable fuel. WHY???? What a waste!!

Most rural parts of the country still allow open burning. This means that they burn their trash, burn off brush trimmings, and burn everything else that they don't need - like their old furniture, building materials, etc.

Why in this day of concern about global temperatures do manufacturers continue to make V-8, V-10, and V-12 engines? Since oil has become a precious commodity, our vehicles have gotten bigger and less efficient.

Why do SUVs and light trucks have more lenient emission standards than cars - when they are used AS cars.

My electric bill runs me about $60 a month year around. That includes central A/C. I converted to fluorescent lighting years before it was a fad. When people like Al Gore can match that, I may actually give them some credibility. Until then, I say thay should practice what they preach. I also live within 1.5 miles of my job. Not 30 or 40 miles away like some. I turn off lights that I am not using. I recycle everything possible. I have been doing that since long before it became fashionable.

Also, some more food for thought.... it has come to my attention that the global temperatures have actually fallen in the last 2 years.

I might also mention that I question the ability of mankind to measure the temperature of the entire planet to average it. Is their sample necessarily representative?

Wow. I could go on for days....

CO2 levels are DIRECTLY correlated to average temperature. There is NO DEBATE WHAT SO EVER ABOUT THIS AMONG SCIENTISTS! Spin it how ever you want. Facts are facts. Just like there is no debate among scientists about whether or not evolution happens.

CO2 levels are DIRECTLY correlated to average temperature. There is NO DEBATE WHAT SO EVER ABOUT THIS AMONG SCIENTISTS! Spin it how ever you want. Facts are facts. Just like there is no debate among scientists about whether or not evolution happens.

The debate centers around who or what is causing changing CO2 levels. Is this a naturally occurring phenomenon and part of a natural cycle? Or is there a cause/effect going on?

Also, just for the record, scientists have also discovered that grass generates more O2 and consumes more CO2 than trees. And, grass is the first thing to grow where trees have been removed.

I do think that mankind has been on the wrong path for many years in destroying our environment. Mines were dumping toxic chemicals into our streams and ground water. Chemical companies likewise. Heavy manufacturing has operated at minimum efficiency for 200 years.

BUT.... of late (the last 40 years), we have been cleaning up our act. No longer are industries allowed to pollute on the grand scale of years gone by. One of the wake up calls was when the Ohio river caught fire in the Cleveland area years ago. I can attest to some of the results. A stream near where I grew up was heavily toxic when I was young. Today, it is a class 1 trout stream. I've seen similar things throughout New England states. I just don't want to see things taken to such an extreme that all commerce and manufacturing is choked out of existence.

[QUOTE=Project2501;717745]

Al Gore's "documentary"? Since when does a professional politician become an expert on meteorology? Just to put things into perspective....

The people that are telling us about this terrible impending "crisis" are doing so while driving Hummers and traveling around by private jets. Al Gore uses more electricity in one month than I do in 10 years!!


HEY!! Don't make fun of the man who invented the internet!!!

Project,

There is a great deal of debate, it just is not in the mainstream media. Water vapor frinstance, has much more of a greenhouse effect than CO2. Many scientists are reversing their opinions on man-made global warming.

As far as the ethanol argument, there is a great deal of propaganda there too. I'd definitely do more research on that. I know that most of the "negative energy balance" findings were from old studies w/ poor methodology that were like 20-30 years old. One guy was behind many of them. He now has a protege who is de-emphasising the energy balance, and saying ethanol is not cost efficient (probably true the way we're trying to do it).

THIS protege worked for an oil company for like 15 years and now is part of a petroleum advocacy group. :o

There's a Harvard study out that used the same inclusiveness of all energy inputs with petroleum and ethanol, to calculate the energy balance of petroleum. Petroleum was not only negative, the ratio was much worse.

For all those living above the 49th parallel, consider the gas prices this summer hitting $1.50/L or for our southern cousins that being equal to about $5.50/gal. Some 37% of that amount are the friggin taxes.:mad: :grr:

Project,

There is a great deal of debate....

No there isn't.

No there isn't.

OOOOOkay If you say so.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientif ic_consensus
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552

http://www.mises.org/story/2795

The fat cat in DC care about one thing money in there pockets they get richer we get poorer

For all those living above the 49th parallel, consider the gas prices this summer hitting $1.50/L or for our southern cousins that being equal to about $5.50/gal. Some 37% of that amount are the friggin taxes.:mad: :grr:

And that is why the governments of both countries aren't doing anything to fix the problem to let you know the price up here would end up being $6.81/ imp gallon

Well they are already starting the stupid BS of saying well in England gas is now over 10.00 US a Gallon
Yeah well we are NOT in England or Europe England, Italy, Spain have always paid much higher fuel prices
And what I noticed on my last trip in Canada...was Quebec was by FAR the most expensive
Alberta was the cheapest and surprisingly Nova Scotia(1 of my Fav places on Earth!) was cheaper than Quebec which really surprised me since small poplualtion and this was up in Cape Breton. Hell PEI was cheaper than Kbeq ;)

But the point is fuel at this point will NEVER drop below 3.00 a gallon every again. And once it hits 4.00 a gallon and then drops back down to the 3.50 a gallon range around fall or so...people will be thrilled it is 50 cents a gallon less. And be grateful for it, that is the way things go and the powers that be know it.

Nothing is going to get fuel prices to drop, and while cutting out the Fed gas tax for the summer driving months sounds good at first. Cutting fuel 19 cents a gallon will ONLY increase the amount people drive, increase demand which will Raise prices even more. So the savings from the gas tax will evaporate in weeks as demand goes up and with that so do the gas/oil prices.

They know people Have to drive and in that have no choice and will just have to deal with things. And if and when the economy tanks worse, it really wont drop in price to much and Not below 3.00 a gallon. Hell oil wont come down below 98.00 a barrel ever again, I think it will go higher and come close too 125.00 a barrel before dropping back down to say 112.00 a barrel or a little less. But High oil is here to stay period NO MATTER WHAT!