|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > October 2005 > E10 nationwide
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-09-30, 9:21 am |
| Many states are in the process of mandating E10, but could all
nationwide gas stations be mandated to have a E10 ethanol blend right
now?
How far is domestic ethanol production away from producing enough?
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-10-01, 4:21 am |
|
<mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1128080827.664962.96130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Many states are in the process of mandating E10, but could all
> nationwide gas stations be mandated to have a E10 ethanol blend right
> now?
>
> How far is domestic ethanol production away from producing enough?
>
In the 80s many Texas small-time convenient stores were putting ethanol in
gasoline to dillute the content of fuel in order to make the price lower.
They stopped after many lawsuits and claims against them due to many
automobile engines screwed up from the ethanol.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-01, 8:21 am |
| GeekBoy wrote:
> <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1128080827.664962.96130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> In the 80s many Texas small-time convenient stores were putting ethanol in
> gasoline to dillute the content of fuel in order to make the price lower.
> They stopped after many lawsuits and claims against them due to many
> automobile engines screwed up from the ethanol.
>
>
Many states are at E10 now. NY has been over a year. There's no problem
running 10% ethanol in todays vehicles.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Drew Cutter 2005-10-01, 12:21 pm |
| Supposedly Ohio gas is cheaper than other surrounding states because of
ethanol in our gas. I know only one gas station that has a ethanol pump.
Steve Spence wrote:
> GeekBoy wrote:
>
> Many states are at E10 now. NY has been over a year. There's no problem
> running 10% ethanol in todays vehicles.
>
>
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-10-01, 9:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:oHt%e.6305$Ge5.1577@fe10.lga...
> GeekBoy wrote:
> Many states are at E10 now. NY has been over a year. There's no problem
> running 10% ethanol in todays vehicles.
It seems so as California uses a lot of enthanol. My 99 Dodge Ram would get
430 miles (highway) on a tank of fuel in Texas and Arizona using 93 octane,
but then hit Calfiornia only only get 300-350 (highway) miles per tank.
So now they are talking in circles. Put only 10% methanol in the gas to
reduce emissions, but now my truck has to work harder to push itself around
therefore I need to use more fuel than without the methanol. Then there is
the car pool lanes. Sitting in a crowed non-carpool lane in stop-n-go
traffic consuming more fuel instead of all lanes being open being more
efficient using less smog polluting gasoline.
Go figure
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-02, 9:21 pm |
| Drew Cutter wrote:
> Supposedly Ohio gas is cheaper than other surrounding states because of
> ethanol in our gas. I know only one gas station that has a ethanol pump.
>
Ethanol put the price of our gas up $0.10 / gallon. It's in every pump.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-10-04, 11:21 am |
| > >
> Many states are at E10 now. NY has been over a year. There's no problem
> running 10% ethanol in todays vehicles.
>
Quote from www.e10unleaded.com:
"The market potential for E-10 Unleaded with Ethanol is roughly three
times what it is today."
http://www.e10unleaded.com/security.htm
I don't think it's blended in all states yet, many articles say big oil
is rather importing petrol to keep prices high.
Minnesota is planning a E20 mandate, and says E30 would work in most
non-FFV cars, too.
If 10% ethanol is making gas more expensive, why is E85 cheaper?
| |
| someone@somewhere.org 2005-10-04, 11:21 am |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net wrote:
> If 10% ethanol is making gas more expensive, why is E85 cheaper?
E85 has about 73% of the energy content of regular gasoline. Since its
not mandated by the government, it has to sell for at least 25% less than
gasoline to make up for the 25% fewer MPG. Otherwise most people wouldn't
buy it.
The public doesn't have a choice about E10, therefore the price can go up.
Add MTBE to the gas - the price goes up. Remove MTBE from the gas - the price
goes up. Add ethanol to the gas - the price goes up. I bet if we remove
ethanol from the gas the price will go up. :-)
| |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-10-04, 12:21 pm |
|
> Add MTBE to the gas - the price goes up. Remove MTBE from the gas - the price
> goes up. Add ethanol to the gas - the price goes up. I bet if we remove
> ethanol from the gas the price will go up. :-)
What about importing Brazilian ethanol? Only heave dutys keep it from
reaching our gas pumps right now. I think the price of E85 would be
unbeatable if the floodgates for Brazilian ethanol were opened!
I don't think energy dependence on Brazil instead of Arab oil would be
a bad trade. It would give the Arabs something to think about.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 12:21 pm |
| On 4 Oct 2005 07:45:55 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> What about importing Brazilian ethanol? Only heave dutys keep it from
> reaching our gas pumps right now. I think the price of E85 would be
> unbeatable if the floodgates for Brazilian ethanol were opened!
And why the hell would we give money to Brazil when we're paying farmers
not to farm in the US?
> I don't think energy dependence on Brazil instead of Arab oil would be
> a bad trade. It would give the Arabs something to think about.
Yeah, Brazil is so much more, you know, stable and easy to deal with.
If the point is to reduce foreign dependance, let's build more nuke
plants and use the combustible fuels we have for our mobile needs.
| |
|
| On 4 Oct 2005 14:59:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On 4 Oct 2005 07:45:55 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
>And why the hell would we give money to Brazil when we're paying farmers
>not to farm in the US?
Because they have a resource that we need. You're mixing apples and
oranges.
>
>Yeah, Brazil is so much more, you know, stable and easy to deal with.
>If the point is to reduce foreign dependance, let's build more nuke
>plants and use the combustible fuels we have for our mobile needs.
And why can't we make a significant dent in our foreign debt by switching
to another, cheaper, source in the mean time?
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 1:21 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:24:23 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2005 14:59:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
> Because they have a resource that we need. You're mixing apples and
> oranges.
We _also_ have that resource that we need. Cycle time on a crop of corn
isn't decades, after all.
>
> And why can't we make a significant dent in our foreign debt by switching
> to another, cheaper, source in the mean time?
See above regarding excess capacity in country and cycle time.
| |
| Mike McWilliams 2005-10-04, 1:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2005 07:45:55 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> And why the hell would we give money to Brazil when we're paying farmers
> not to farm in the US?
>
>
duh, because it's cheaper to buy brazilian because they will work for
pennies a day where your north american farmer wants a few hundred, not
to mention equipment and fuel costs which are avoided when human power
is available for pennies a day
>
>
> Yeah, Brazil is so much more, you know, stable and easy to deal with.
> If the point is to reduce foreign dependance, let's build more nuke
> plants and use the combustible fuels we have for our mobile needs.
Brazil is actually pretty stable, but the US is quite conservative, and
doesn't tend to like dealing with leftist governments...
Besides, in the end, ethanol is a misguided pipe dream. If it weren't,
don't you think the brazilians would be dominating in the energy sector
as they have a few decades of experience?
| |
| Mike McWilliams 2005-10-04, 2:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
> See above regarding excess capacity in country and cycle time.
>
Again, recall that american farmers want more money, have to pay higher
wages, and use strictly mechanical methods which are maintenence
intensive, and fuel cost intensive...
Some people estimate that from two to ten calories go into producing one
calorie of food due to current farming methods.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 2:21 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:11:04 -0600, Mike McXXXXXXXX <michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
[color=darkred]
> duh,
Ah yes, the "kindergarten technique". Because that always helps your
argument sound more, you know, carefully considered.
> because it's cheaper to buy brazilian because they will work for
> pennies a day where your north american farmer wants a few hundred, not
> to mention equipment and fuel costs which are avoided when human power
> is available for pennies a day
Show me the end cost. How much for a gallon, today, please? Oh,
including shipping.
[color=darkred]
> Brazil is actually pretty stable, but the US is quite conservative, and
> doesn't tend to like dealing with leftist governments...
If you say so.
> Besides, in the end, ethanol is a misguided pipe dream. If it weren't,
> don't you think the brazilians would be dominating in the energy sector
> as they have a few decades of experience?
And what's your real answer then? I propose growing biofuels locally,
building more nuke plants, and reducing the amount of money we give to
people who are actively trying to kill us.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 2:21 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:18:13 -0600, Mike McXXXXXXXX <michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> Again, recall that american farmers want more money, have to pay higher
> wages, and use strictly mechanical methods which are maintenence
> intensive, and fuel cost intensive...
How much do you actually know about American farmers, I wonder?
> Some people estimate that from two to ten calories go into producing one
> calorie of food due to current farming methods.
Some people make vague unsupportable claims on usenet without any shred
of evidence to back them up. Care to provide some sort of cite for that
incredible (sic) claim?
| |
|
| On 4 Oct 2005 15:42:33 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:24:23 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>We _also_ have that resource that we need. Cycle time on a crop of corn
>isn't decades, after all.
It's cheaper to buy it from them than go through the manufacturing process
here.
| |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-10-04, 2:21 pm |
|
>
> Some people make vague unsupportable claims on usenet without any shred
> of evidence to back them up. Care to provide some sort of cite for that
> incredible (sic) claim?
Ditto about the critic's "studies", such as from certain university
professors that happen to have their stake in big oil, that it takes
more energy to produce biofuels than will result:
Why not let SUPPLY AND DEMAND answer these questions!
If the claims are true, no farmer+ethanol plant owner would ever make a
cent profit by selling energy because of his own energy bill.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 2:21 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:55:42 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2005 15:42:33 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> It's cheaper to buy it from them than go through the manufacturing process
> here.
That's wonderful. What's the cost per gallon, please, and where can I
buy 1000?
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 2:21 pm |
| On 4 Oct 2005 10:05:38 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ditto about the critic's "studies", such as from certain university
> professors that happen to have their stake in big oil, that it takes
> more energy to produce biofuels than will result:
> Why not let SUPPLY AND DEMAND answer these questions!
Show me the prices and availability.
> If the claims are true, no farmer+ethanol plant owner would ever make a
> cent profit by selling energy because of his own energy bill.
If the claims are true, we'd all be starving. We're not, therefore I'd
love to see a credible cite backing up your incredible (sic) claim.
You are familiar with the term "peer reviewed", yes?
| |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-10-04, 3:21 pm |
|
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:55:42 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> That's wonderful. What's the cost per gallon, please, and where can I
> buy 1000?
this URL:
http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/progr...n%20ethanol.pdf
says $1.01 per gallon
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 3:21 pm |
| On 4 Oct 2005 10:50:30 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
[color=darkred]
> this URL:
> http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/progr...n%20ethanol.pdf
> says $1.01 per gallon
Excellent. Where can I get a tanker load of the stuff?
| |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-10-04, 5:21 pm |
|
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2005 10:50:30 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Excellent. Where can I get a tanker load of the stuff?
at the pump in Brazil...
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exh...Study9Item2.asp
On the way north, add 60 cents import duty per gallon.
But we should be happy to pay for fuel when the money stays in country,
it makes economic sense.
An idea to go beyond the 10% blend would be to sell, say, 2 gallon
plastic bottles of ethanol at gas stations or supermarkets (it is sold
in smaller bottles already), so that everyone can mix his own blend of
gas and ethanol, whether or not he happens to be next to a E85 station.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 5:21 pm |
| On 4 Oct 2005 12:20:04 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> at the pump in Brazil...
See, that doesn't help me much/any then, does it?
> http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exh...Study9Item2.asp
> On the way north, add 60 cents import duty per gallon.
OK, so the cost per gallon, then, is a bit more than you said earlier.
> An idea to go beyond the 10% blend would be to sell, say, 2 gallon
> plastic bottles of ethanol at gas stations or supermarkets (it is sold
> in smaller bottles already), so that everyone can mix his own blend of
> gas and ethanol, whether or not he happens to be next to a E85 station.
I've got a tank. If I can get the stuff delivered to my house for
anything resembling $1.50 a gallon (south-central Wisconsin) I'll start
burning E25.
| |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-10-04, 6:21 pm |
|
>
> I've got a tank. If I can get the stuff delivered to my house for
> anything resembling $1.50 a gallon (south-central Wisconsin) I'll start
> burning E25.
Don't know, some heating oil suppliers might be delivering pure
ethanol.
http://www.cenexmontana.com/index.a...tion/fuels.main
But isn't that the great thing about ethanol? There's the potential for
a true gold rush competition, no OPEC monopoly setting the price.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-04, 6:21 pm |
| On 4 Oct 2005 13:17:50 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> Don't know, some heating oil suppliers might be delivering pure
> ethanol.
> http://www.cenexmontana.com/index.a...tion/fuels.main
You're doing a great job of making my point - it's a great idea, and yet
it's not happening. WHY?
> But isn't that the great thing about ethanol? There's the potential for
> a true gold rush competition, no OPEC monopoly setting the price.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-05, 6:21 am |
| <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>If the claims are true, no farmer+ethanol plant owner would ever make a
>cent profit by selling energy because of his own energy bill.
The subject was food vs ethanol, and farmers are subsidized.
Nick
| |
| zenboom 2005-10-05, 8:21 am |
|
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3qfoetFenirgU2@individual.net...
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:11:04 -0600, Mike McXXXXXXXX
<michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
farmers[color=darkred]
>
>
> Ah yes, the "kindergarten technique". Because that always helps your
> argument sound more, you know, carefully considered.
>
>
> Show me the end cost. How much for a gallon, today, please? Oh,
> including shipping.
>
>
>
> If you say so.
>
>
> And what's your real answer then? I propose growing biofuels locally,
> building more nuke plants, and reducing the amount of money we give to
> people who are actively trying to kill us.
>
"give money"? don't you mean 'paying money'? But the major benefit would be
the security of those people in producing countries, should the US no longer
seek to 'protect their interests' and 'make the world safe'.
| |
| mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net 2005-10-05, 8:21 am |
| >
> You're doing a great job of making my point - it's a great idea, and yet
> it's not happening. WHY?
>
A lot is happening to make it happen: the IndyCars are switching to
ethanol, web-sites promoting ethanol are plentyful, and high gas prices
make it more attractive than ever (see for example
http://home.fueltracker.com/comment...splay.html?id=1)
But a lot of unnecessary obstacles slow it down:
1. The hydrogen-fuel promotions: Cal. govenor Schwarzenegger proudly
presented his hydrogen Hummer, but said no word about E10 or E85
A lot of people dont realize how remote in the future hydrogen is
(filling station infrastructure etc.), while ethanol is just
2. Lack of E85 gas stations - the government fleets that bought FFVs
but run on 100% gasoline 0% ethanol.
3. Lack of E85 vehicles: The 2005 FFV models are almost all
trucks/SUVs, but no classic passenger cars. 2006 models seem to have
wider FFV support, but until they "tickle down" to used car lots, it
will be a long time.
A better solution would be to let the drivers choose their own level
ethanol-blend at the pump: Some might prefer high priced gasoline for
fears of engine damage, others will fuel up cheaper E30 no matter what
the warranties say.
| |
|
| On 4 Oct 2005 17:14:57 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:55:42 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>That's wonderful.
Thank you. Glad I could open your eyes.
| |
|
| On 4 Oct 2005 17:59:44 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On 4 Oct 2005 10:50:30 -0700, mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net <mrbeer-rootbeer@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>Excellent. Where can I get a tanker load of the stuff?
Brazil.
Haven't you been following, or do you just like to whine to hear yourself
whine?
It's cheaper. Stop trying so hard.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 9:21 am |
| On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:12:52 +0200, zenboom <?signal.ds?@?bluebottle.com?> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3qfoetFenirgU2@individual.net...
[color=darkred]
> "give money"? don't you mean 'paying money'?
Did you have anything useful to say on the actual topic?
> But the major benefit would be
> the security of those people in producing countries, should the US no longer
> seek to 'protect their interests' and 'make the world safe'.
Ah, apparently not.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 9:21 am |
| On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:38:14 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2005 17:14:57 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Thank you. Glad I could open your eyes.
I notice you ignored the part about it being a couple thousand miles
away at that price. Wake me up when I can buy it here. When I can call
someone and have my 600 gallon tank filled with it, it does me good.
Until then, it's just more of the same, Mark.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 9:21 am |
| On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:39:31 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2005 17:59:44 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> Brazil.
I'm not _IN_ Brazil, Mark.
> Haven't you been following, or do you just like to whine to hear yourself
> whine?
> It's cheaper. Stop trying so hard.
It's not cheaper, Mark, if I can't fucking buy it.
| |
|
| On 5 Oct 2005 11:53:48 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:39:31 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>I'm not _IN_ Brazil, Mark.
Boo hoo. Cry me a river. You asked where you could get it. I answered
you. It's painfully obvious that you're just in this for an argument.
There is no answer good enough for you.
>
>It's not cheaper, Mark, if I can't fucking buy it.
Again, you're just in it for an argument. You can buy it. It is cheaper.
It's just going to take a little (gasp) effort on your part. Nobody is
going to drop it off for you.
You asked for numbers, they were thrown at you - still not good enough.
You needed to find another angle to complain about.
When will it end, Dave? I'll tell you when - right now. Enjoy the last
word.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 11:21 am |
| On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:07:02 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2005 11:53:48 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> Boo hoo. Cry me a river. You asked where you could get it. I answered
> you. It's painfully obvious that you're just in this for an argument.
No, Mark. You're the one taking an attitude from post-one. I'd love
nothing more than to find a viable source of biofuels for my vehicles.
My statements in this regard have been consistant for years.
> There is no answer good enough for you.
No, Mark, once again you're wrong. Your answer shows some glimmering of
promise. But, it's on the wrong continent, you see.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Again, you're just in it for an argument. You can buy it. It is cheaper.
Great, please have 600 gallons delivered to my tank. I can pay in
advance once you show me ability to deliver.
> It's just going to take a little (gasp) effort on your part. Nobody is
> going to drop it off for you.
Ah well then, I'll just drive to fucking Brazil, that's a great idea.
> You asked for numbers, they were thrown at you - still not good enough.
> You needed to find another angle to complain about.
Mark, you have presented an interesting data point. It's useful, as far
as it goes. The problem is, it "goes" to many thousand miles too far
from here.
> When will it end, Dave? I'll tell you when - right now. Enjoy the last
> word.
That's great. You're just another noisemaker then, instead of someone
with an actual solution of any kind. Thanks for making that abundantly
clear.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-05, 12:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
....
> I notice you ignored the part about it being a couple thousand miles
> away at that price. Wake me up when I can buy it here. When I can call
> someone and have my 600 gallon tank filled with it, it does me good.
> Until then, it's just more of the same, Mark.
Alternative Fueling Station Locator
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/inf...re/locator.html
Alas, it only shows 3 stations in the entire state of California
and one of them is at an Air Force base. It isn't what I would
consider widely available.
Anthony
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 1:21 pm |
| On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:55:59 -0700, Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Alternative Fueling Station Locator
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/inf...re/locator.html
Ah, very nice link. So I can buy biodiesel only 64 miles from my house,
in Illinois. Pity that that's a private/fleet source. Closest public
source is 84 miles away. Let's see about something else...
E85 - cool, I can get that less than a mile from where I work! Farwell
avenue, in Milwaukee. (me: calls for price) "I am sorry to be telling of
the you but the pump is brrrroken for the long time". Damn.
Ah well, pumps can break, that's understandable. Let's call the one on
Capitol, out of my way but not too much. "We don't have it." Ah well.
So far, no good. Well, I get to madison a few times a month, let's try
there. Hm. The nice lady at the Stop-N-Go on Shroeder road in Madison
tells me that it's illegal to give me a price over the phone. No clue
if that's true or not.
Well, I just put a call into our local rural coop. They can get, but
don't have an infrastructure for, E85. But, they can sell me biodiesel,
delivered. I'll report the price when the sales guy calls me back.
Maybe it's time to switch. Somehow, I don't think so, yet.
Too bad we're wasting effort in hydrogen when we should be subsidizing
the hell out of biofuel production in this country, to get the economies
of scale working for us.
> Alas, it only shows 3 stations in the entire state of California
> and one of them is at an Air Force base. It isn't what I would
> consider widely available.
Don't tell Mark, he'll get all hostile on you.
Dave Hinz
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-05, 1:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Mike McXXXXXXXX <michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
>Some people make vague unsupportable claims on usenet without any shred
>of evidence to back them up.
Would this include vague unsupportable claims that other claims are false? :-)
>Care to provide some sort of cite for that incredible (sic) claim?
Care to provide a less-vague alternative number?
And why the sic?
Nick
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 1:21 pm |
| On 5 Oct 2005 11:40:55 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would this include vague unsupportable claims that other claims are false? :-)
He doesn't give enough information about his claim to know what he even
means, let alone to start to show why it's wrong.
> Care to provide a less-vague alternative number?
Well, the fact that we haven't all starved to death seems to indicate to
me, that growing food isn't a 2:1 or 10:1 losing proposition.
> And why the sic?
Because I mean incredible. As in, not credible. As in, I don't believe
it has any credibility. As in, I feel he's talking out his XXX. "Some
people estimate" isn't even enough of a source to start to take
seriously.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-05, 2:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>He doesn't give enough information about his claim to know what he even
>means, let alone to start to show why it's wrong.
I disagree. A Calorie is a unit of energy, about 4 Btu. Food and fuel
both contain energy which can be measured in Calories. Mike says it
takes 2-10 Calories of fuel to produce 1 Calorie of food. I've heard
this claim from several scientists and seen evidence on the web. It's
a definite statement, with numbers. OTOH, you have no numbers, merely
a snide denial.
>
>Well, the fact that we haven't all starved to death seems to indicate to
>me, that growing food isn't a 2:1 or 10:1 losing proposition.
Then again, we haven't run out of oil yet.
>
>Because I mean incredible. As in, not credible. As in, I don't believe
>it has any credibility...
You might well say so, instead of misusing the word "sic," as if Mike
misused or mispelled "incredible."
Nick
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 3:21 pm |
| On 5 Oct 2005 13:01:55 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I disagree. A Calorie is a unit of energy, about 4 Btu. Food and fuel
> both contain energy which can be measured in Calories. Mike says it
> takes 2-10 Calories of fuel to produce 1 Calorie of food. I've heard
> this claim from several scientists and seen evidence on the web. It's
> a definite statement, with numbers. OTOH, you have no numbers, merely
> a snide denial.
Since when does the person saying 'that sounds like bullshit, can you
provide a source for your unlikely claim' have to prove something?
>
> You might well say so, instead of misusing the word "sic," as if Mike
> misused or mispelled "incredible."
Perhaps you aren't familiar with what (sic) actually means. One use of
it, which seems to be what you think is the only use, is when you're
quoting someone who has made a mistake to say "Yes, they really wrote it
like that". That isn't the only accepted use of the term, however.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-05, 4:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
>Perhaps you aren't familiar with what (sic) actually means. One use of
>it, which seems to be what you think is the only use...
My dictionary says "inserted [sic] to show that an expression,
spelling, or the like, exactly reproduces the original."
Nick
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 5:21 pm |
| On 5 Oct 2005 15:00:21 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> My dictionary says "inserted [sic] to show that an expression,
> spelling, or the like, exactly reproduces the original."
Some place called "Princeton University" defines it as:
---begin cite---
sic
adv : intentionally so written (used after a printed word or phrase) v :
urge a dog to attack someone [syn: set]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
---end cite---
As interesting as duelling dictionary pissing contests can be, I just
can't see prolonging this one.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-05, 6:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> quotes Princeton:
>adv : intentionally so written (used after a printed word or phrase)
So you think this means it can be used by the orignal author?
[color=darkred]
And you think the statement above is meaningless?
Nick
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-05, 6:21 pm |
| On 5 Oct 2005 16:05:51 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> quotes Princeton:
>
>
> So you think this means it can be used by the orignal author?
I don't see it saything that says it can't. See my previous statement
regarding tediousness of dictionary comparison pissing contents.
[color=darkred]
> And you think the statement above is meaningless?
I would like to see something credible to back it up, so I can evaluate
if it's meaningless or not. See the distinction?
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-05, 8:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>I don't see it saything that says it can't...
It might be so used, in Latin, as in "Sic transit gloria mundi."
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/gram...mmarlogs358.htm
QUESTION
Can you give me an example of a sentence using the word sic?
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
In a Latin phrase, it would mean "thus," as in the phrase that Booth shouted
right after he shot LIncoln: "Sic semper tyrannis" (Thus ever to tyrants!).
Its more widespread use today, however, is to indicate that that a word or
phrase has been reproduced exactly as the original speaker or writer would
have it — misspellings and all. It is often written in parentheses
immediately after a misspelling or grammatical impropriety to indicate that
that is how it appeared in the original.
That may not exclude your being "the original writer," but it seems
very odd, far stranger than referring to yourself in the third person.
>
>
>I would like to see something credible to back it up, so I can evaluate
>if it's meaningless or not. See the distinction?
No. IMO, meaningfulness concerns verifiability, vs truthfulness.
"2+2 = 5" is a meaningful statement, even though it is false.
Nick
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-06, 12:21 am |
| On 5 Oct 2005 19:08:56 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote:
>
> It might be so used, in Latin, as in "Sic transit gloria mundi."
Yawn. Word games.
> That may not exclude your being "the original writer," but it seems
> very odd, far stranger than referring to yourself in the third person.
> No. IMO, meaningfulness concerns verifiability, vs truthfulness.
> "2+2 = 5" is a meaningful statement, even though it is false.
Whatever, Nick. Find someone else to play word games with, I'm not
interested. Got anything useful to say about E10, E85, or the
unavilability of meaningful amounts of biodiesel?
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-06, 10:21 am |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Whatever, Nick. Find someone else to play word games with, I'm not
>interested.
It's simpler to say "I was wrong, twice " :-)
Nick
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-06, 12:21 pm |
| On 6 Oct 2005 07:32:32 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> It's simpler to say "I was wrong, twice " :-)
Concession noted. So, I take it you have nothing useful to say on the
topic of biodiesel and/or ethanol fuels?
On a, you know, related to the topic note, I find that I am able to buy
biodiesel locally - at a whopping 2% biodiesel, that is. Oh, and it's
for farm use only, can't get it with road tax paid. So, just like the
mythical E85, it also can't be bought based on nearly an hour of calling
around.
Maybe someday we'll get smart and start supporting our farmers, rather
than people who want to kill us.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-06, 12:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>Concession noted.
You are such a weasel :-)
>So, I take it you have nothing useful to say on the topic of biodiesel
>and/or ethanol fuels?
I'd say the best bets are a) running a diesel vehicle on used French fry
oil, with no engine mods, from a nearby restaurant paying $50-100/drum to
"dispose" of it, as the Rifton NY Bruderhof do with their 10 Jettas, and
b) buying ethanol from a processor who converts a 56 lb bushel of corn into
ethanol, corn oil, 40% protein meal, corn meal, and 3 lb of unfermentable
pelletized fuel. Altho b) seems inefficient, given the size of a corn plant
and its need for herbicides, cultivation, fertilizer, and so on. Soybeans
might work better.
Nick
| |
|
| On 6 Oct 2005 07:32:32 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>It's simpler to say "I was wrong, twice " :-)
>
>Nick
Nick - you're wasting your time with Dave. It's painfully obvious that the
only right opinion is his.
You're expecting miracles for him to admit any wrong logic no matter how
blatant it is.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-10-06, 4:21 pm |
| On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:43:55 -0400, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Nick - you're wasting your time with Dave. It's painfully obvious that the
> only right opinion is his.
Hey Mark, I called around. I can get B2 delivered, 500 gallon minimum,
for $2.749 per gallon. Oh, but it's not street legal. Nobody in
Milwaukee or Madison has E85. So, the answer to "where can I buy it,
Mark", is "Nowhere useful".
> You're expecting miracles for him to admit any wrong logic no matter how
> blatant it is.
Wake me up when I can buy this stuff here, Mark. Until then, you're
just yet another noisemaker. The coop tells me that their ethanol plant
will be built in the next year or two, maybe then it'll stat happening.
I'm not holding my breath. As much as we'd both like biofuels to be
viable, they just aren't right now.
If you have a problem with my post, Mark, please address a specific
point rather than sniping at me from the side, wouldya? What specific
problems do you have with this post, Mark?
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-06, 7:21 pm |
| What is a "French-Fry Farmer"?
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:di3dgs$pht@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>Concession noted.
You are such a weasel :-)
>So, I take it you have nothing useful to say on the topic of biodiesel
>and/or ethanol fuels?
I'd say the best bets are a) running a diesel vehicle on used French fry
oil, with no engine mods, from a nearby restaurant paying $50-100/drum to
"dispose" of it, as the Rifton NY Bruderhof do with their 10 Jettas, and
b) buying ethanol from a processor who converts a 56 lb bushel of corn into
ethanol, corn oil, 40% protein meal, corn meal, and 3 lb of unfermentable
pelletized fuel. Altho b) seems inefficient, given the size of a corn plant
and its need for herbicides, cultivation, fertilizer, and so on. Soybeans
might work better.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|