Time for gasolin summer mix yet?

"Cameo" wrote in news:io68lu$71p$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Yes. We also have politicians who like to buy votes with pork; the farm lobby and Commercial Alcohols take full advantage of that.

If politicians could not splash out cash to lobby groups, lobby groups would not exist. Think of it this way: which comes first, the flies or the garbage?

Alan Bowler wrote in news:io7atq$kjs$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And if I were the size of a grain of rice, I could dance on the head of a pin; if we had perpetual-motion machines, we wouldn't need to use oil or ethanol; if I didn't need to breathe, I could live underwater.

If if if if.

Which is nowhere near /any/ sort of reality. Cellulosic ethanol is a pipe- dream that's used as partial justification for keeping the insanity alive.

I think another factor is brand of gasoline. The discount brands are definitely noticable with regard to lowered mileage. OTOH, I've been using Shell mostly and there's not a huge difference.

But I sure heard a lot of howling from my "el cheapo" friends that buy only discount gas...

JT

Ethanol, climate change, health care reform are all liberal wet dreams having little to do with the scheme of things in the real world.

I'm starting to think that only a regime change with a resultant "Fidel Castro" method of remedy will fix it...

JT

I only asked because I thought Canada was pretty selfsufficient in oil production.

It's more than just a pipe dream. Iogen's demo plant produces about 1000 gallons a day. There are other cellulosic technologies being developed other places.

Alan Bowler wrote in news:io7nn3$is7$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

A thousand gallons a day is a toy number. And that's at the cost of the diversion of 40% of the world's corn production.

They're going to need to be in the /millions/ of gallons per day to even come close to satifying the requiremenmts of the use of ethanol as a 10% additive, let alone as a fuel in its own right.

The simple fact is that there is currently no source of cellulase (the enzyme that breaks down cellulose) available that could be produced in the volumes necessary to make ethanol economically viable. Not only that, but there is not even anything in the lab that holds the promise of mass- production of cellulase. A pipe-dream, as I said.

Ethanol was, and is, a stupid, damamging idea. Unfortunately, thousands of influential people draw economic benefit from it at the expense of non- influential millions who have to pay for it, so it's not going to die anytime soon.

"Cameo" wrote in news:io7h0i$uei$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

You want self-sufficient? Try Brazil.

In the last couple of years Brazil has boosted their domestic oil production by 876%. That's not a typo. They've done this by accelerating the issuance of drilling permits on- and off-shore. Even the Brazilians realize ethanol is an expensive feel-good toy.

"30m" = "30 thousand" years? Damn, that's a long time!

Ah, the magic of free markets!

:)

Doesn't the cash flow from the lobbyists *to* the politicians? The lobbyists profit (handsomely) when they get the legislation they want and get back $1,000 for every $1 spent on politicians.

Maybe this crap is done differently in Canada?

Tony

Alan Bowler wrote in news:io78re$rcv$1@dont- email.me:

I am not familiar with MMT but the EPA attempted to force the addition of MTBE in our winter fuel here in Alaska. It didn't even last the first winter. They were told by our Governor at the time, after about two or three months, that MTBE was a health hazard and increased fuel consumption by such a degree that any emission reductions were lost, in fact reversed and it would NOT be used any longer. The fuel vendors were directed to cease putting it in the fuel immediately, which they did....

Daved

Who was the Gov?

there's no business investment comparable to the return on the lobbying dollar. nothing even close.

Tony Harding wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com:

That's how the politicians are swayed to bend their powers towards the lobbyists, and how the lobbyists make their living.

The point is that politicians /have/ that power to funnel money one way or another. That's the power you need to take away from them. No garbage, no flies.

Sure do. check out GE, ADM, ConAgra,and a host of other firms. They've got it down to a science.

Nope. Exactly the same.

It is true that Brazil boosted it's domestic production of oil, but they they were almost self-sufficient before those discoveries were made because they use ethanol for much of their fuel needs. Car fuel Brazil has at least 25% ethanol, and 90% of the cars and light trucks sold their now can run with up to 100% ethanol mix.

Canada is more than self-sufficient. We were that back in the oil crisis of the 70's. Production has gone up a lot since then as higher prices made things like the oil-sands and off-shore drilling economic (although with a lot of up-front government money to kick start it.)

Today, Canada is the US's largest supplier of oil. (Mexico is second, then Saudi Arabia).

Alan Bowler wrote in news:ioai0e$kgn$1@dont- email.me:

Except that Canada imports quite a lot of oil.

Excerpt: "Even though Canada is a net oil exporter, it imports sizable quantities of crude oil and refined products. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Canada imported around 1.2 million bbl/d of crude oil and refined products in 2006."

Which means our oil isn't really economic to produce. Plus we're paying the rest of the world to take our expensive oil. Pretty stupid. And pretty Canadian.

So how come your enviromentalists don't prevent off-shore drilling the way they succeed in the US?

Agreed, I was just pulling numbers from the air.