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

Yes, it is an idiot.

Reply to
Attila Iskander
Loading thread data ...

My, you just can't give it up. You should see a shrink about that. You really do need help.

Reply to
krw

But it's good for Archers Danial Midland and that's what matters. They give a lot of money to Republicans in Congress to keep the Ethanol scam and HFCS scams going strong.

The biggest finger the U.S. gave to the Arab oil sheiks is what happened during the Obama administration. Higher fuel economy standards, huge increases in oil drilling and domestic oil production, and the Iran nuclear deal. All of these are bringing down the price of oil because of increased supply and decreased demand, though the declining price is hurting Russia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela a lot more than the Arab oil sheiks. Goldman is predicting that oil prices will hover at around $50 for decades, and may fall to $20 for a short time to clear out some of the present glut.

I never understood how lower prices could clear out a glut. Other than countries filling strategic oil reserves, to clear out a glut someone has to stop pumping so much. People aren't going to rush out to buy

15MPG vehicles just because oil prices are lower than what they've been.
Reply to
sms

Surely you jest? Look at how many people buy "half cars" (we call them pickup trucks :> ) despite the fact that they are no cheaper than "whole cars" and will typically NOT be used *as* trucks (to haul things).

Our 2003 model vehicle got better gas mileage than our 2016 model. Because fuel costs are low enough that SWMBO could rationalize one set of "requirements" over the previous set (fuel efficiency).

Folks still buy Hummers. I've never seen any one used as a light utility vehicle!

Reply to
Don Y

On 09/19/2015 6:40 PM, sms wrote: ...

Nonsense. Check the mercantile markets...corn closed yesterday CBOT under US$3.80. ...

More nonsense...most of the corn converted to ethanol is being grown specifically for the purpose.

...

Checked out the employment figures and rig count in US oil patch recently????

Reply to
dpb

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:40:41 -0500, sms wrote:

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:

formatting link
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:
formatting link
Corn was at least double the price back in the 1910s than it is now. The second here:
formatting link
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
formatting link
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:
formatting link

Reply to
Dean Hoffman

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:

formatting link

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:

formatting link

"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.

Reply to
trader_4

No it is not good enough reason tell your friends to use CONDOMS instead f*ck 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:

formatting link

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:

formatting link

"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.

Reply to
tony944

HRC says no to the pipeline. From the National Journal:

formatting link

Reply to
Dean Hoffman

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.

Reply to
trader_4

Per dpb:

But wouldn't that be taking land out of production for food-type crops ?

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

Yes.

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

Reply to
Dan Espen

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.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Explain that to starving populations.

Reply to
mike

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.

formatting link

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.

Reply to
Dan Espen

Most new car owners manual mentions about Ethanol fuel as a warning. My car runs poor unless high octane dino juice is fed. Can feel it accelerates poor when merging into freeway.

Reply to
Tony Hwang

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.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

HomeOwnersHub website 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.