| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2006 12:03:51 AM |
| Object: |
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/27/2006
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to
California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming
an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again,
he's telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It
happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn't quite
recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here's a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk:
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva didn't celebrate the
oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of
Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep
blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to
do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads,
seeks to pile taxes on.
Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling
companies, from 1% to 6% — a 600% hike for some — and then turning the
spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is
the way to end California's dependence on imported oil.
"Imagine if we stop being dependent on foreign oil. Brazil did it.
They made a simple switch to their cars. Switched to ethanol, grown
from their own crops. And it's 33% cheaper than gas," Clinton said,
neglecting one key detail: cars must use three times as much ethanol
as gas.
"With Proposition 87, we can switch to cleaner fuels, wind and solar
power," he says in a political ad, "and free ourselves from foreign
oil. If Brazil can do it, so can California."
But as a matter of fact, that's not what Brazil did.
It launched a crash program of offshore oil drilling in the late
1990s, working with a Manhattan Project-like determination to develop
its own natural resources.
In 1997, Brazil opened its oil sector to foreign competition,
encouraging companies like Royal Dutch Shell to explore and drill for
oil in its offshore waters for the first time. It offered incentives —
like tax cuts. It also turned its inefficient state oil company,
Petrobras, into a for-profit company run like a real business instead
of a government cash cow, forcing it to compete on an
international-standard level. In short, it got out of the way.
Net result, lots more oil for Brazil — enough to enable the
once-oil-dependent country to actually export some, all from fewer
energy reserves than the U.S.
Brazil's new P-50 rig has boosted output to an average 1.9 million
barrels of oil a day, a bit more than the 1.85 million Brazil
consumes.
By contrast, ethanol output in Brazil, the world's biggest producer,
is only a small share of its energy consumption.
Last year, the country squeezed out just 282,000 barrels a day mostly
using sugar, a more efficient and clean-burning energy source than the
corn-based stuff produced in the U.S. But sugar-based ethanol still
isn't as efficient as gasoline.
Not surprisingly, Brazil's ethanol production began as a big
government project in 1975, curiously similar to what Clinton is
touting. It was run by the military junta, and was costly — the junta
pumped in about $16 billion in loans and price supports to sugar
companies over two decades. The output still was meager.
Ethanol output didn't take off until government fetters were lifted in
1989 and the market was free to develop it without government
involvement. It became a far more viable energy source after that.
Clinton has had a long history of raising political funds from
agri-biz giants — like Archer Daniels Midland — interested in
government contracts. As Brazil's example shows, taxing oil to
subsidize ag firms is exactly the wrong way to produce ethanol — or
oil. If Clinton were really sincere about ethanol itself, he'd be
lobbying for an end to tariffs on cheap ethanol from Brazil.
But it looks like he'd rather repeat Brazil's decades of energy
mistakes instead of cutting to the real reason for Brazil's success:
its decision to drill offshore for oil.
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 10:15:11 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h35bk213ptc7lor1mg49tb7v891a6ucu5o@4ax.com...
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/27/2006
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to
California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming
an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again,
he's telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It
happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn't quite
recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here's a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk:
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva didn't celebrate the
oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of
Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep
blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to
do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads,
seeks to pile taxes on.
Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling
companies, from 1% to 6% - a 600% hike for some - and then turning the
spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is
the way to end California's dependence on imported oil.
This is sugar coating for a tax increase. These wonderful results he
predicts will be the result of that even though most supporters are enviro
activists that probably aren;t old enough to vote and don't pay taxes. Most
folks there think that the oil companies will be paying these taxes when in
reality they will only be collecting it from consumers for the government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 11:36:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:15:11 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h35bk213ptc7lor1mg49tb7v891a6ucu5o@4ax.com...
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/27/2006
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to
California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming
an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again,
he's telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It
happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn't quite
recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here's a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk:
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva didn't celebrate the
oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of
Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep
blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to
do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads,
seeks to pile taxes on.
Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling
companies, from 1% to 6% - a 600% hike for some - and then turning the
spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is
the way to end California's dependence on imported oil.
This is sugar coating for a tax increase. These wonderful results he
predicts will be the result of that even though most supporters are enviro
activists that probably aren;t old enough to vote and don't pay taxes. Most
folks there think that the oil companies will be paying these taxes when in
reality they will only be collecting it from consumers for the government.
California has this prop 87. This law would tax oil companies for oil
pumped in California. The law also states that the oil companies can
not pass on the increase in costs to the California consumer. Here is
how the oil companies get around this. California refineries get oil
from two sources, California oil fields and Oil from the North Slope
in Alaska. This oil is refined and sold through out the Western US.
California can refine and sell the Alaska oil in California thus
incurring no additional taxes. California oil can be refined for use
in other states such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon ect. The oil companies
can increase the price of this product to reflect additional costs in
these other states.
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 02:34:08 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:abdck2tlhpt7qckviv6r76f5u1j8abe9fp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:15:11 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h35bk213ptc7lor1mg49tb7v891a6ucu5o@4ax.com...
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/27/2006
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to
California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming
an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again,
he's telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It
happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn't quite
recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here's a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk:
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva didn't celebrate the
oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of
Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep
blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to
do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads,
seeks to pile taxes on.
Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling
companies, from 1% to 6% - a 600% hike for some - and then turning the
spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is
the way to end California's dependence on imported oil.
This is sugar coating for a tax increase. These wonderful results he
predicts will be the result of that even though most supporters are enviro
activists that probably aren;t old enough to vote and don't pay taxes.
Most
folks there think that the oil companies will be paying these taxes when
in
reality they will only be collecting it from consumers for the government.
California has this prop 87. This law would tax oil companies for oil
pumped in California. The law also states that the oil companies can
not pass on the increase in costs to the California consumer. Here is
how the oil companies get around this. California refineries get oil
from two sources, California oil fields and Oil from the North Slope
in Alaska. This oil is refined and sold through out the Western US.
California can refine and sell the Alaska oil in California thus
incurring no additional taxes. California oil can be refined for use
in other states such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon ect. The oil companies
can increase the price of this product to reflect additional costs in
these other states.
That reads strange. If they pump the oil for refining, it would be taxed at
the wellhead. Would it not?
If they tax the oil to be refined there would be a tax. If they tax it after
refining, then it's a tax on gasoline, heating oil or other.
I have no reason to doubt what you are saying but it would seem a tax on
everybody but California.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 07:46:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:34:08 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:abdck2tlhpt7qckviv6r76f5u1j8abe9fp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:15:11 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h35bk213ptc7lor1mg49tb7v891a6ucu5o@4ax.com...
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/27/2006
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to
California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming
an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again,
he's telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It
happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn't quite
recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here's a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk:
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva didn't celebrate the
oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of
Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep
blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to
do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads,
seeks to pile taxes on.
Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling
companies, from 1% to 6% - a 600% hike for some - and then turning the
spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is
the way to end California's dependence on imported oil.
This is sugar coating for a tax increase. These wonderful results he
predicts will be the result of that even though most supporters are enviro
activists that probably aren;t old enough to vote and don't pay taxes.
Most
folks there think that the oil companies will be paying these taxes when
in
reality they will only be collecting it from consumers for the government.
California has this prop 87. This law would tax oil companies for oil
pumped in California. The law also states that the oil companies can
not pass on the increase in costs to the California consumer. Here is
how the oil companies get around this. California refineries get oil
from two sources, California oil fields and Oil from the North Slope
in Alaska. This oil is refined and sold through out the Western US.
California can refine and sell the Alaska oil in California thus
incurring no additional taxes. California oil can be refined for use
in other states such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon ect. The oil companies
can increase the price of this product to reflect additional costs in
these other states.
That reads strange. If they pump the oil for refining, it would be taxed at
the wellhead. Would it not?
If they tax the oil to be refined there would be a tax. If they tax it after
refining, then it's a tax on gasoline, heating oil or other.
I have no reason to doubt what you are saying but it would seem a tax on
everybody but California.
Exactly. Other western states are in for a hike in gasoline prices to
support the prop 87 oil tax. You don't realistically believe that the
oil companies are going to absorb excess costs do you?
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 09:19:08 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:rcadk2dv68kuigl69he5vlthhpt2kk2fef@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:34:08 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:abdck2tlhpt7qckviv6r76f5u1j8abe9fp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:15:11 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h35bk213ptc7lor1mg49tb7v891a6ucu5o@4ax.com...
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/27/2006
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to
California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming
an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again,
he's telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It
happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn't quite
recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here's a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk:
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva didn't celebrate the
oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of
Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep
blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to
do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads,
seeks to pile taxes on.
Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling
companies, from 1% to 6% - a 600% hike for some - and then turning the
spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is
the way to end California's dependence on imported oil.
This is sugar coating for a tax increase. These wonderful results he
predicts will be the result of that even though most supporters are
enviro
activists that probably aren;t old enough to vote and don't pay taxes.
Most
folks there think that the oil companies will be paying these taxes when
in
reality they will only be collecting it from consumers for the
government.
California has this prop 87. This law would tax oil companies for oil
pumped in California. The law also states that the oil companies can
not pass on the increase in costs to the California consumer. Here is
how the oil companies get around this. California refineries get oil
from two sources, California oil fields and Oil from the North Slope
in Alaska. This oil is refined and sold through out the Western US.
California can refine and sell the Alaska oil in California thus
incurring no additional taxes. California oil can be refined for use
in other states such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon ect. The oil companies
can increase the price of this product to reflect additional costs in
these other states.
That reads strange. If they pump the oil for refining, it would be taxed
at
the wellhead. Would it not?
If they tax the oil to be refined there would be a tax. If they tax it
after
refining, then it's a tax on gasoline, heating oil or other.
I have no reason to doubt what you are saying but it would seem a tax on
everybody but California.
Exactly. Other western states are in for a hike in gasoline prices to
support the prop 87 oil tax. You don't realistically believe that the
oil companies are going to absorb excess costs do you?
I believe I already said that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 11:07:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:19:08 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:rcadk2dv68kuigl69he5vlthhpt2kk2fef@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:34:08 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:abdck2tlhpt7qckviv6r76f5u1j8abe9fp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:15:11 -0500, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h35bk213ptc7lor1mg49tb7v891a6ucu5o@4ax.com...
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/27/2006
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to
California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming
an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again,
he's telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It
happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn't quite
recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here's a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk:
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva didn't celebrate the
oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of
Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep
blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to
do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads,
seeks to pile taxes on.
Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling
companies, from 1% to 6% - a 600% hike for some - and then turning the
spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is
the way to end California's dependence on imported oil.
This is sugar coating for a tax increase. These wonderful results he
predicts will be the result of that even though most supporters are
enviro
activists that probably aren;t old enough to vote and don't pay taxes.
Most
folks there think that the oil companies will be paying these taxes when
in
reality they will only be collecting it from consumers for the
government.
California has this prop 87. This law would tax oil companies for oil
pumped in California. The law also states that the oil companies can
not pass on the increase in costs to the California consumer. Here is
how the oil companies get around this. California refineries get oil
from two sources, California oil fields and Oil from the North Slope
in Alaska. This oil is refined and sold through out the Western US.
California can refine and sell the Alaska oil in California thus
incurring no additional taxes. California oil can be refined for use
in other states such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon ect. The oil companies
can increase the price of this product to reflect additional costs in
these other states.
That reads strange. If they pump the oil for refining, it would be taxed
at
the wellhead. Would it not?
If they tax the oil to be refined there would be a tax. If they tax it
after
refining, then it's a tax on gasoline, heating oil or other.
I have no reason to doubt what you are saying but it would seem a tax on
everybody but California.
Exactly. Other western states are in for a hike in gasoline prices to
support the prop 87 oil tax. You don't realistically believe that the
oil companies are going to absorb excess costs do you?
I believe I already said that.
Yes you did.
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 02:30:03 AM |
|
|
Ethanol isn't bad energy policy. It's a byproduct of america's massive
agriculture industry. Anyway, A biodeisel and bioenthanol filling
station just opened up in my town. 10 cents cheaper than gasolene. And
way cheaper than deisel. Lots and lots of cars in my city have biodesil
bumper stickers. This was when people went around begging used french
fry oil from the local restaurants and filtering it themselves. Not so
much to save the enviroment, as to save money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 11:22:04 AM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2006 00:30:03 -0800, "paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org>
wrote:
Ethanol isn't bad energy policy. It's a byproduct of america's massive
agriculture industry. Anyway, A biodeisel and bioenthanol filling
station just opened up in my town. 10 cents cheaper than gasolene. And
way cheaper than deisel. Lots and lots of cars in my city have biodesil
bumper stickers. This was when people went around begging used french
fry oil from the local restaurants and filtering it themselves. Not so
much to save the enviroment, as to save money.
What is your mileage? I suspect that there is not enough excess french
fry oil to make a major dent in the need for Petroleum based fuels.
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 01:08:24 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 00:30:03 -0800, "paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org>
wrote:
Ethanol isn't bad energy policy. It's a byproduct of america's massive
agriculture industry. Anyway, A biodeisel and bioenthanol filling
station just opened up in my town. 10 cents cheaper than gasolene. And
way cheaper than deisel. Lots and lots of cars in my city have biodesil
bumper stickers. This was when people went around begging used french
fry oil from the local restaurants and filtering it themselves. Not so
much to save the enviroment, as to save money.
What is your mileage? I suspect that there is not enough excess french
fry oil to make a major dent in the need for Petroleum based fuels.
You lose a few percent. 25mpg City. And no, there's not enough french
fry oil for more than a cottage industry. THere IS enough plant waste
to make a dent in the gasolene need.
There's another biodeisel source. And that's animal waste.
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/anything-oil/
The cooking oil is a petroleum based product, it's very similar to
diesel, which is why you don't need to make any modifications to run
it. You DO have to filter out the peices of french fries or risk damage
to the engine.
The old deisel powered cars (rabbits, for example), and the newer
trucks will all run it just fine. The ethanol has to be processed for
the gasolene engines.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy |
30 Oct 2006 07:39:20 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2006 11:08:24 -0800, "paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org>
wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 00:30:03 -0800, "paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org>
wrote:
Ethanol isn't bad energy policy. It's a byproduct of america's massive
agriculture industry. Anyway, A biodeisel and bioenthanol filling
station just opened up in my town. 10 cents cheaper than gasolene. And
way cheaper than deisel. Lots and lots of cars in my city have biodesil
bumper stickers. This was when people went around begging used french
fry oil from the local restaurants and filtering it themselves. Not so
much to save the enviroment, as to save money.
What is your mileage? I suspect that there is not enough excess french
fry oil to make a major dent in the need for Petroleum based fuels.
You lose a few percent. 25mpg City. And no, there's not enough french
fry oil for more than a cottage industry. THere IS enough plant waste
to make a dent in the gasolene need.
There's another biodeisel source. And that's animal waste.
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/anything-oil/
The cooking oil is a petroleum based product, it's very similar to
diesel, which is why you don't need to make any modifications to run
it. You DO have to filter out the peices of french fries or risk damage
to the engine.
The old deisel powered cars (rabbits, for example), and the newer
trucks will all run it just fine. The ethanol has to be processed for
the gasolene engines.
For a good part of my life I drove diesels. I had an 82 Maxima diesel
got around 27 MPG and for 12 years I never had a problem. I also had a
Volvo diesel. Had it for five years. I may get another.
For vehicles with current (2006) design flexible fuel engines, fuel
economy (measured as miles per gallon (MPG), or liters per 100km) is
directly proportional to energy content.[14] Ethanol contains approx.
34% less energy per gallon than gasoline, and therefore will get 34%
fewer miles per gallon.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/ddown.cgi?afdc/FAQ/5/0/0
Even if Ethanol fuel is cheaper than gasoline you end up paying more
because you need 1.4 gallons of ethanol to do the same amount of work
as 1 gallon of gasoline. Note on the above chart that diesel fuel,
both petrochemical and bio, is more efficient than gasoline. .88
gallons of diesel fuel does the same work as 1 gallon of Gasoline.
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
