AAA: E15 could really fark up your car, void warranties

Page 7 of 7  


Yes.
We have a net energy shortage. Right now, we're doing fine with food.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/1/2015 10:09 AM, Dan Espen wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can't argue with that. Can't even make sense of that.
The USA exports 20% of it's corn production. We're the world leader in corn production. Most of these "starving populations" are living in war zones. If you can figure out how to ship corn there, more power to you.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/the-worlds-10-hungriest-countries/
By all means, eating is way more important than reducing US dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, I don't think stockpiling corn we can't use is going to help.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan Espen wrote:

My car runs poor unless high octane dino juice is fed. Can feel it accelerates poor when merging into freeway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/1/2015 4:08 PM, mike wrote:

Not that simple. We have starving people and we have surpluses of food. We send food to other countries and no one ever gets it. We pay farmers not to grow some crops. At least Reagan gave away cheese we paid to store for no good reason. Maybe we should get rid of some of the Dept. of Agriculture and farm subsidies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/1/2015 12:45 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Just think of the tractors going up and down the fields. And then all the petroleum needed to distil the alcohol. It's not a big energy gain, at all.
And they could be growing pig feed corn with all that land and petroleum.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some cut.
The original post is from almost three years ago so I'm not sure who wrote what other than the last paragraph. This is also from some time ago: http://preview.alturl.com/peu58 The short version is 3% of U.S. corn production is used directly for human consumption. Food grade corn requires special practices starting at planting. It has to be isolated from neighboring corn by the use of isolation rows, for example. Some inflation adjusted pricing. The first is from the USDA going back to 1910: http://preview.tinyurl.com/o49y2na Corn was at least double the price back in the 1910s than it is now. The second here: http://preview.alturl.com/tuyki It goes back to 1981. It was higher back then, inflation adjusted. There wasn't much in the way of ethanol requirements back then if my memory is working. The earliest I remember of ethanol was back in the mid 70s. It was called gasohol. I think the Nebraska corn board was pushing is as another outlet for corn production. There are 4,000 uses for corn now. There isn't much irrigation in Illinois and Iowa, the two largest corn producers. Drought hits, prices go up, Nebraska farmers buy new equipment. Mrs. Farmer sees all that shiny stuff and there is a new house going up, too. Conventional wisdom among farmers is there is no feed value lost through ethanol production. The cattle feeders use the distillers grains to feed their critters. This http://preview.tinyurl.com/pf398wq is from the Wisconsin Farmers Union. It cites the United States Department of Agriculture and compares what farmers receive compared to what consumers spend on a few items. Farmers are largely food consumers also nowadays. Farms of my parents generation had some crops, some livestock, and gardens. The women raised chickens for eggs and butchering. The runt of the pig litter was bacon eventually. A steer would be hamburger when needed. Those days are virtually gone now. The only livestock on many farms now is the dog. Consumers are spending a lot of money in restaurants according to this: http://preview.alturl.com/3rogj
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 7:40:48 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

More total crazy Democrat biased nonsense. The same list of interests from farmers to ethanol producers give lots of money to both parties. And farm price supports which transfer money from consumers into the pockets of these people have been in place since the 1920s, have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats and have expanded under both Democrat and Republican controlled governments. If anything, historically there have been more Republicans in favor of getting rid of them, but never enough to make it happen. For example, here's the Senate vote last year, covering 2014 - 2018:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress 3&session=2&vote021
Republicans voting Yes 34 Democrats 34
Republicans voting No 21 Democrats voting 11
Equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats voted for it, but clearly there were twice as many Republicans voting against it as Democrats. And those against it have included people across all ranges of the political spectrum, from some Tea Party conservatives to Elizabeth Warren.
So, stop peddling the typical partisan Democrat nonsense that this is somehow a Republican problem. BTW, which party started and drove the whole renewable, green energy ethanol nonsense to begin with? Was Obama's position to end it or expand it? And if this is a Republican thing, why didn't Obama and the Democrats just fix it when they had control of the Congress and the WH for the first year and a half? They didn't end it, they expanded it as part of their energy and green energy economics. So, don't try to sell us that typical partisan BS.

Typical. You left out the part that's actually relevant to the discussion here. Obama expanded the money being spent to subsidize ethanol, which puts money into the pockets of those corporate interests. And he's still doing it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/obama-said-to-pledge-100-million-to-boost-ethanol-fuel-pumps
"The Obama administration is set to pledge $100 million Friday to expand the use of special fuel pumps that allow drivers to blend more ethanol into their gasoline, according to people briefed on the announcement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has long championed these so-called blender pumps, may unveil the plan on the same day that the Environmental Protection Agency announces quotas for the use of renewable fuels."
Also on a true lib loon would drag the disaster and embarrassment of the Iran nuke deal into a discussion on farm subsidies.

What brought the price down was a huge increase in US drilling that had nothing to do with Obama. That increase came on private land, drilling on public land has decreased. And Obama continues to stand in the way of our energy and national security by blocking the XL pipeline. The coward running to take his place, Hillary, refuses to answer the simple question if she is in favor of building XL.

History says that you're wrong on that too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"trader_4" wrote in message wrote:

No it is not good enough reason tell your friends to use CONDOMS instead fuck like Rabbits and have babies every six months expect some one ales to feed them as it have became in our Country and then complain kids are dying who's fault is that, yes I know it is SCUMBAGS in Washington.
Diversion of crops to ethanol has

More total crazy Democrat biased nonsense. The same list of interests from farmers to ethanol producers give lots of money to both parties. And farm price supports which transfer money from consumers into the pockets of these people have been in place since the 1920s, have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats and have expanded under both Democrat and Republican controlled governments. If anything, historically there have been more Republicans in favor of getting rid of them, but never enough to make it happen. For example, here's the Senate vote last year, covering 2014 - 2018:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress 3&session=2&vote021
Republicans voting Yes 34 Democrats 34
Republicans voting No 21 Democrats voting 11
Equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats voted for it, but clearly there were twice as many Republicans voting against it as Democrats. And those against it have included people across all ranges of the political spectrum, from some Tea Party conservatives to Elizabeth Warren.
So, stop peddling the typical partisan Democrat nonsense that this is somehow a Republican problem. BTW, which party started and drove the whole renewable, green energy ethanol nonsense to begin with? Was Obama's position to end it or expand it? And if this is a Republican thing, why didn't Obama and the Democrats just fix it when they had control of the Congress and the WH for the first year and a half? They didn't end it, they expanded it as part of their energy and green energy economics. So, don't try to sell us that typical partisan BS.

Typical. You left out the part that's actually relevant to the discussion here. Obama expanded the money being spent to subsidize ethanol, which puts money into the pockets of those corporate interests. And he's still doing it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/obama-said-to-pledge-100-million-to-boost-ethanol-fuel-pumps
"The Obama administration is set to pledge $100 million Friday to expand the use of special fuel pumps that allow drivers to blend more ethanol into their gasoline, according to people briefed on the announcement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has long championed these so-called blender pumps, may unveil the plan on the same day that the Environmental Protection Agency announces quotas for the use of renewable fuels."
Also on a true lib loon would drag the disaster and embarrassment of the Iran nuke deal into a discussion on farm subsidies.

What brought the price down was a huge increase in US drilling that had nothing to do with Obama. That increase came on private land, drilling on public land has decreased. And Obama continues to stand in the way of our energy and national security by blocking the XL pipeline. The coward running to take his place, Hillary, refuses to answer the simple question if she is in favor of building XL.

History says that you're wrong on that too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://tinyurl.com/pm3q95f
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Well, how about that. She must have read my post. It took her long enough, but it's no surprise. Neither is the nonsensical reasoning:
"I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change," Clinton told a community forum in Des Moines, Iowa.
"And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues," she said. "Therefore I oppose it."
XL is a distraction? It interferes with our ability to move forward with "all the other issues"? Really? That's about as stupid as it gets. Following that logic we should halt all new drilling, any plans for nuclear, etc, because it "interferes" with our ability to move forward. And with 65% of Americans in favor of XL, it will be a good campaign issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

feed a man one time and he will be grateful, feed him more than that and he won't grow his own food.

as far as beef goes, the DDGS provide a higher protein content than the corn and the Distillers need to either sell it or pay to have it disposed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Possibly, but they won't all fail at once. Perhaps some will never fail and others will fail over a several year period.

Because, as you said, MPG will go down for the same price paid. Plus, food prices will go up.

Balderdash!
I have a better definition: Conservatives want to PROMOTE the general welfare through the ECONOMY, liberals want to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the TREASURY.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only reason they want to stop using ethanol for fuel, is because they want to drink the stuff. It's pure Moonshine, the best booze money can buy. I say it should be used for drinking. If people drink it, no one will be sober enough to drive anyhow, and we will no longer need fuel or cars. Dont just burn it up, enjoy it in a cocktail!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, November 30, 2012 11:33:10 AM UTC-7, HeyBub wrote:

http://www.freep.com/article/20121130/BUSINESS01/121130007/gasoline-ethanol-car-truck-damage-AAA?odyssey=tab |topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

My Dodge van is able to handle E-85 fuel but no one has it in their pumps. I would use it if it was available. If you believe anything that the Petroleum Institute puts out then you are gullible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Try Fastrac stations, found in NYS. Plenty of E-85 to be found.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
My Dodge van is able to handle E-85 fuel but no one has it in their pumps.
I would use it if it was available.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.