damage from ethanol?

Page 6 of 7  
On 10 May 2006 05:28:59 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

than you get when you burn it again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

barrow ( clean) spreading around the pool with shovel might of been a better idea, to bad I didn't think of that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i find alot of chainsaws and weedwackers wont restart when hot because the ethenol/gas boils and wont pump... let em cool and they start and run fine. lucas
http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wonder if the OP (mm) expected all this when he asked his question :-)
Harry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 May 2006 03:41:03 GMT, "HarryS"

No, not really. In fact I got so far into the environment thing, I forgot to read the answers to my original question, until now.

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

I don't know about small engines but in Brazil they sell dual fuel vehicles which can run on either fuel blend. Brazil is self-suffcient on fuel producing lots of ethanol. U.S. could do it too. and why not?.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A lot of people are mentioning Brazil as if it was some kind of ideal example. That is certainly not the case. They did not convert to ethanol for environmental reasons - they did it to control their balance of payments and trade deficits. It wasn't necessarily cheaper and a lot of Brazilian drivers hated the ethanol fueled cars. It took a while before the were able to get cars that ran well on ethanol. Now that the technology has settled down, Brazilian drivers still resent the ethanol fuels (sort of like North American drivers that are still cranky about pollution control equipment on their cars - there's no problem with it, just a perception based on the relatively poor performance of the first pollution controlled cars in the '70s.)
Brazil's ethanol industry is based on sugar cane, which is not a good source. It was relatively plentiful and they couldn't get as much money exporting sugar as converting it to fuel. The US, for examples, blocked sugar imports with trade restrictions and a propped-up US price to support US sugar businesses - like sugar beet.
Ethanol has to be based on a marginal crop that can grow without intense farming techniques. Otherwise, it will cost more energy to make than to use.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Daly wrote:

All good points Mike. This is another example of how only a part of the story gets told and how people go off half cocked. Another key point to the Brazil story is they didn't just use Ethanol to become energy independent. Last week there was a picture of the President of Brazil on an offshore oil well, turning the valve on, bringing it online.
Yet, if you talk about drilling off shore in most areas of the US, the environmental extremists all come running around telling you it shouldn't be done. Then they point to the wonders of Brazil as an example of how to achieve energy independence, hoping nobody will notice the truth.
The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more conservation, etc. But anytime you try to do almost any one of these, some nuts show up to piss and moan and stop it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11-May-2006, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

A multiple front attack on the problem is inevitable. There is no silver bullet, but a lot of smaller changes have some hope of getting us a lot closer to the solution.

And unfortunately, most people claim these pissers and moaners are all left-wing environmentalists, In fact, right-wing politicians in the back pockets of special interest groups are just as much of a problem.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Daly wrote:

People claim that the environmental kooks are a problem becauce they are totally unreasonable and opposed to almost everything. No offshore drilling, no nukes, no drilling in ANWAR, no storage sites for nuke waste, no builiding of dams. A classic case of the hypocracy is Robert Kennedy Jr. Big environmentalist telling us all how we should be changing our lives to help the environment, conserve resources and how we should be adopting all these great clean renewable energy sources.
But, he sees nothing wrong in personally owning several large SUVs, more than one home and riding in private jets. Currently three is a proposal to build a wind farm off Cape Cod. Who are two of the chief opponents? Kennedy and fellow liberal Walter Cronkite. They know what's good for all of us, they just won't have any part of it for themselves.
You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not opposed to everything and do want to move ahead on finding more energy, which we ultimately need. All the whacko environmentalists want to do is obstruct everything, including windmills, while many of them like Kennedy, consume resources with abandon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12-May-2006, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Well, did it ever occur to you that there's a difference between an environmental kook and an environmentalist? I didn't think so...

He's in politics. Enough said. I was talking about environmentalists.

Then why did it take so many years for Bush to even mention alternative energy?
Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because all of the alternative energy sources except arguably nuclear are a bad economic bargin until petrol hits $4.50 a gallon.
We use dead dinosaurs (ok, algea) to run our cars because they're REALLY, REALLY cheap, compared to all the alternatives.
It's true that it's not as cheap as it used to be. This shouldn't be a surprise to you. You will never move a 3,000# chunk of metal with you inside it around the country for less than $0.10 a mile again. Get used to it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And those alternatives have been dropping in price for decades as the technology is improved, developed and volume of sales increases. The only reason that cars are so cheap is that they've spent over a century getting the price down and the volume up.
Putting subsidies in place that support big oil in preference to alternatives (the prior Bush plan) works against the free market that allows alternatives to flourish. Most Americans probably never heard of biodiesel until Bush talked about it.
Ethanol - I read this morning in the latest edition of The Economist that the US has a $0.54/liter surcharge on imported Brazilian ethanol and a $0.51/liter tax break on domestic ethanol. Them republicans shore luv th' free markit - and getting the taxpayer to pay for it.

High-powered car at high speed? - yes.
Sailboat? No.
Don't give up so easily :-)
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are a couple of valid reasons for both the surcharge and the tax break/subsidy for fuel ethanol. The primary reasons for the subsidy are to encourage ethanol production in the U.S. The production of fuel ethanol in the U.S. is an emerging technology and the subsidy offers an incentive to folks to invest in fuel ethanol plants and to continue to explore the various methods of producing fuel ethanol. Left to its own devices, this industry would likely be very slow to develop. For this reason alone, the subsidy makes some sense. If the cost of crude stays where it is today, I suspect that the ethanol subsidy will be eliminated or scaled back or perhaps even indexed to the price of crude.
There's a huge local benefit when something like a fuel ethanol plant is built. Besides the jobs the plant creates, there are numerous economic benefits to add to the salary base that can have a large impact on the local economy. A fuel ethanol plant is no different in this respect than any large business that locates in an area.
Our government is also using the fuel ethanol subsidy to see if they can't fashion a replacement for the grain price supports they've been using for years to encourage farmers to stay in the business. As the use of corn for manufacturing fuel ethanol pushes the price of corn up, less price support is necessary. In that sense, it's not a new subsidy but a replacement subsidy that, in effect, derives more return in the form of an incentive for an emerging industry than a simple price support.
The surcharge on imported ethanol also makes sense if we're trying to encourage expansion of the domestic fuel ethanol industry. For one thing, it makes little sense to import fuel ethanol from Brazil, or any other country, just to switch our hostage position in the energy industry from one fuel type to another.
Harry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Daly wrote:

That's why I used the term environmental kook. Sure there are some environmentalists that have some balance, but they are rarely heard from. Instead the ones we hear from and that have control of the movement are largely the kooks that show up opposed to everything except conservation.

In politics? He holds no elected office that I am aware of, but he sure is deep into environmental organizations and causes. But it's ok for him to own multiple vehicles, SUV's, fly in corporate jets and oppose windmills when they turn out to be in his families area of interest.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Biography The way Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has assumed command of the Water Keeper Alliance, you'd almost think he started the environmental movement on his own. But he actually stumbled into it as a result of a 1984 criminal conviction for heroin possession. A judge sentenced him to 800 hours of community service, which he satisfied with volunteer work for the Hudson River Foundation. After his 800 hours were used up, the organization (now operating as the Hudson Riverkeepers) hired Kennedy as its "chief prosecuting attorney." In the years since his drug conviction, Kennedy has also gone to work for the Natural Resources Defense Council and assumed a professorship in the law school at Pace University. Kennedy also started Pace's environmental law clinic specifically to sue governments and businesses on behalf of Riverkeeper.
Robert Kennedy approaches environmental law with a brash, take-no-prisoners approach that tends to alienate many who might otherwise be his allies. After working with him on a $10 million New York City watershed agreement, Putnam County (NY) legal counsel George Rodenhausen told reporters that "he separates himself from good science at times in order to aggressively pursue an issue and win."
In July 2003, a major U.S. pork producer obtained an indictment against Kennedy in Poland for committing slander during an inflammatory rant against the company's Polish subsidiary. The indictment charges that Kennedy spouted "untrue information" and "consciously manipulated the facts" with the intent to "discredit the company."
Kennedy's harshest public thrashing to date, however, came from one of his closest colleagues, Riverkeeper founder Robert Boyle. Along with seven other Riverkeeper board members, Boyle resigned in 2000 after Kennedy insisted upon hiring a convicted environmental felon as the group's chief scientist. At the time, Boyle told the New York Post that Kennedy "is very reckless," and added that "[h]e's assumed an arrogance above his intellectual stature."
Reflecting on the episode later, Boyle gave the New York Times an apt summary of Kennedy's attitude regarding his environmental crusades: "I thought he was thinking of himself and not the cause of the river," Boyle said. "It all became his own greater glory."

Maybe because he thinks the free market is better at figuring out solutions than another government boondoggle. I'm still waiting for the first gallon of oil from the billions that Jimmy Carter took from the oil companies to produce oil from shale. Actually it was taken from consumers, because taxes just get passed on like any other cost.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world."
While there are things that Pres. Bush has been deeply disappointing in, the alternatives are worse. I mean a "5" as Pres. is better than a "0".
Walt Conner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Walt, that's a terrible thing to say about John McCain!
S
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You've got to be kidding. Even long term republicans that I know think he is the worst president the US has ever had.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


No wonder,the way the Mainstream Media reports.(biased reporting) Most poeple only hear one distorted side.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Bush's crimes. The media is biased alright. But in the direction of the media's owners desires, not the public's need to know.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.