eulesseagle

Woo hoo!! Less than $4k to go!! Click that "Continue" button below and let's git'er done!! Thank you all very much!! Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers Hawaii Reporter ^ | 2Jul 06 | Michael R. Fox Ph.D., Posted on 07/07/2006 11:18:10 AM PDT by xzins Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/2/2006 11:14:32 PM People buying into the myth that Ethanol is our energy ace have simply got to beware. In Hawaii, that includes The Honolulu Advertiser pushing it (June 20, 2006), and in recent weeks Hawaiian Electric Co. spokespeople, Governor Linda Lingle, and local radio talk show hosts. We had the Bill O'Reilly/Sen. John Kerry love fest on June 29 asserting the ethanol option is the right one. Even President George W. Bush has been swayed by the rhetoric. These politically correct solutions to our energy supply problems, if allowed to persist, are beyond silly and quite dangerous. Too few understand what energy is and does; too few know what goes on upstream of the gas pumps and behind the electrical switches. There are many good handbooks of chemistry and engineering which can add considerable information to all. There are all too few engineers involved with these debates as well. Thus, according to American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the energy content in a gallon of Ethanol is well known to be about 76,000 Btu/gallon of ethanol. Gasoline by contrast contains about 50 percent more energy at 114,000 Btu/gal. (The British thermal unit, Btu, is one of many commonly used units of energy) As Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, the energy per gallon of the mixed fuel drops, being diluted with the less energetic ethanol. The E85 mixture (85 percent Ethanol) contains 83,260 Btu/gal. Obviously, this is less energy than is in the gasoline itself, and as a result, the mileage will therefore drop. A major reason why Ethanol is so popular in the United States is the presence of huge subsidies throughout, not because of any magical energy sources. There are subsidies for growing the corn, for building the distilleries, and a 51 cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is to say that the taxpayers are paying much of the Ethanol tab. Whatever the consumers pay at the pump is so much the better for the ethanol lobby. This excludes state tax credits and other subsidies. For the record according to Patzek, in the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, taxpayers spent $41.9 billion in corn subsidies. Currently, according to Patzek (UC Berkeley The Real Biofuel Cycles April 17, 2006), there is an estimated total ethanol tax credit of 57cents per gallon. This is collected by the Ethanol lobby, too. Just to make things sweeter, the U.S. has erected import tariffs on imported ethanol of more than 50 cents/gallon to defend against lower cost imports of that Brazilian ethanol. This helps to inflate the price of ethanol to the consumers, quite similar to the tariffs erected to protect the US sugar lobby. According to Tad Patzek, the true costs of corn ethanol to the taxpayers are $3.12 per gallon of ethanol, or $4.74 per gallon of gasoline equivalent GGE—to adjust for the energy difference in the two fuels). This sleight of hands bears studying. If ethanol at the pump shows a price of say $2.75/gallon, and that for gasoline is $3.00/gallon some would conclude that the ethanol is the cheaper energy. It’s not. Since the gallon of ethanol contains only 65% of the energy of the gallon of gasoline, the price for the ethanol per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), is $2.75 / 0.65 = $4.23/gallon. This is not a good deal for the consumers. A closer look is needed at the “great Ethanol successes” in Brazil claimed by television host Bill Oreilly, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and others. It’s a completely different situation. First, Brazilian Ethanol is made from sugar cane, not corn, and is a much more suitable source of ethanol. Furthermore, the sugar cane grows all year around. We can’t grow corn year round in the US, nor is it very well suited for ethanol, nor can we grow sugar cane in the Midwest climates. Brazil is in many ways a 3rd world country certainly not fully developed and not nearly as productive and energy intensive as the U.S. Many families do not own any cars and the cars which do exist are much smaller. The population is smaller, 62 percent of the US at 186 million. Brazil also has vast tracts of very cheap land available for agriculture. Ethanol has a great number of engineering problems to be a serious energy source for the future, not the least of which is its relatively low energy density 76,000 Btu/gal. For our leaders to be throwing out these superficial one-line energy solutions for uninformed Americans is as dangerous as it is misleading. There are many long range cost and performance uncertainties in comparing sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn infrastructures needed in the manufacture of ethanol. In all cases the crops require long term agricultural operations, infrastructure, and investment including water, land, and energy, nutrients (fertilizers) of millions of acres of land. In spite of the exaggerations the word is getting out about the dubious nature of Ethanol. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote (June 29, 2006): “We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient..... And we don't use corn because it is environmentally friendly. Growing it sucks up huge amounts of energy and water and leaves tons of chemicals adrift in the ecosystem. We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies.” We’d do well to remember what John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com ANOTHER STORY Issue 14.10 - October 2006 Subscribe to WIRED magazine and receive a FREE gift! Six Ethanol Myths The most promising alternative fuel has been dogged by misinformation. Here's a look at the reality behind the ethanol myths. By Vinod KhoslaPage 1 of 1 Back to Story My Big Biofuels Bet 1) It takes more energy to make ethanol than the fuel itself produces. Reality: Not so. Critics like to cite a 2005 study that shows a negative energy balance for ethanol, but that study was coauthored by a former oil company employee. It is contradicted by five others showing that corn ethanol delivers 20 to 50 percent more energy output than it takes to produce, and cellulosic up to 600 percent more. The National Resources Defense Council calls corn ethanol "energy well spent." Story Tools Rants + Raves More » START Explore what's inside squirt-on cheese Football's new call: Techdown! How to dismantle an atomic bomb More » PLAY Aardman Features plays with digital clay Why Justin's latest album refuses to suck Fuzoku revealed: inside Japan's sex industry Fetish: Technolust Test: Consumer Reviews More » Posts War on Cyberterror, a role-playing game William O. Goggins (1963-2006) PLUS: Sterling rebuilds the Louisiana coast More » 2) Ethanol is expensive to produce. Reality: Ethanol costs about $1 a gallon to produce at typical facilities, which explains why E85 was selling for $1.95 at pumps in South Dakota this summer. In 2004, it was selling for $1.40 a gallon wholesale. Prices spiked higher recently because oil companies mismanaged the switch to ethanol as a replacement for the environmentally disastrous additive MBTE. Once demand and supply reach equilibrium, it can profitably sell for $1.40 a gallon without subsidies. 3) There's not enough land to grow crops for ethanol. Reality: Former secretary of state George Schultz and ex-CIA director R. James Woolsey estimate that 30 million acres can replace half our gasoline. I estimate that 40 million to 60 million acres can replace our gasoline needs. By taking land now used to grow export crops and instead planting energy crops, it's feasible to eliminate our need to import oil for gasoline. 4) Switching to ethanol is expensive. Reality: It didn't cost much in Brazil. Automakers already produce 10 flex-fuel models. There are almost as many flex-fuel vehicles in California as there are diesel cars and light trucks. A new car can be made flex-fuel-capable for about $35. And the cost to adapt a retail gas pump for E85 is a bargain – as little as $10,000. 5) Ethanol is unfairly subsidized. Reality: Yes, ethanol producers and blenders share in a 51-cent-a-gallon federal credit that costs taxpayers about $2 billion a year. The majority of that accrues to oil companies, not farmers. But not mentioned by critics is the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which hampers global competition. Meanwhile, the US also directly subsidizes Big Oil. The General Accounting Office reports that the industry has netted $82 billion from just one line item alone, something called "excess of percentage over cost depletion," and there are many other such clauses. 6) Cars that run on ethanol get lower mileage. Reality: Ethanol gets 25 percent lower mileage compared to gasoline. But that difference is likely to shrink dramatically as engines are optimized. The Saab 9-5 gets only 18 percent less mileage and can be further optimized easily. Significantly, the cost per mile driven should be lower using E85. Page 1 of 1

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/23/espn...om-brady-bunch/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...23/whair123.xml

40. "Oh I just couldn't, hell, she's only sixteen." 39. "I'll take Shakespeare for 1000, Alex" 38. Duct tape won't fix that. 37. Lisa Marie was lucky to catch Michael. 36. Come to think of it, I'll have a Heineken. 35. We don't keep firearms in this house. 34. Has anybody seen the sideburns trimmer? 33. You can't feed that to the dog. 32. I thought Graceland was tacky. 31. No kids in the back of the pickup, it's just not safe. 30. Wrasslin's fake. 29. Honey, did you mail that donation to Greenpeace? 28. We're vegetarians. 27. Do you think my gut is too big? 26. I'll have grapefruit and grapes instead of biscuits and gravy. 25. Honey, we don't need another dog. 24. Who's Richard Petty? 23. Give me the small bag of pork rinds. 22. Too many deer heads detract from the decor. 21. Spittin is such a nasty habit. 20. I just couldn't find a thing at Wal-Mart today. 19. Trim the fat off that steak. 18. Cappuccino tastes better than espresso. 17. The tires on that truck are too big. 16. I'll have the arugula and radicchio salad. 15. I've got it all on the C drive. 14. Unsweetened tea tastes better. 13. Would you like your fish poached or broiled? 12. My fianc?, Bobbie Jo, is registered at Tiffany's. 11. I've got two cases of Zima for the Super Bowl. 10. Little Debbie snack cakes have too many fat grams. 9. Checkmate. 8. She's too young to be wearing a bikini. 7. Does the salad bar have bean sprouts? 6. Hey, here's an episode of "Hee Haw" that we haven't seen. 5. "Nope, no more for me. I'm drivin tonight." 4. Be sure to bring my salad dressing on the side. 3. I believe you cooked those green beans too long. 2. Those shorts ought to be a little longer, Darla. 1. I don't have a favorite college team.

http://www.unoprivateers.com/ViewArticle.d...;ATCLID=1369703 interesting stats about unt http://stats.nola.com/cbk/teamstats.asp?te...report=teamhome

IMHO, I would not be opposed to him being a graduate assisant coach so he can learn a "new system" but not a FT paid Offensive or Defensive assistant. Just about everyone was screaming last year about Coach Mendoza (Coach Mendoza played college football and was the DC at the "most" sucessful HS football program in the state and he had about 25-30 coaching experience). Many of us want us to be like TCU, Boise State or Hawaii who fields a consistant winner every year. Can you afford to take chances on someone who was an assistant college coach one year and a few years as a high school coach? Personally, I am thrilled that RA wants to apply for the job but I also think that there are better qualified coaches "out there" who know all the various systems without going through a learning curve. UNT went through a "learning curve" last year with a HS coach that had a better football coaching "resume" than RA. I have never personally met RA and I am sure he is an outstanding individual and coach but this is not the time to experiment on former players who want to try their hand at coaching when UNT is in a "serious" effort to rebuild a program into national prominance and good enough to jump to a better conference. Only TD knows what he is looking for on the two vacancies and what we know about Coach Dodge he will not tell us, for obvious reasons. I will support whoever Coach Dodge gets to fill the two positions if RA is included in the program or not. Heck we should all know how hard the coaching profession is......just look at the turnover every year......

yep, 1 season as an assistant.....my point is that UNT needs experience not another HS coach even if he has 1 year experience under the 2 win season of Coach Dickey in his last year.....IMHO.....1 year as an assistant at UNT ......is not......college level experience that we need. this is not to throw RA under the bus and is not ment to be but everyone filled this board with the prevailing topics of the need for "experienced" college level coaches. I appreciate what RA has accomplished in his life, thus far, but IMHO, again, he brings no track record of college level accomplishment to UNT.

http://www.ponyfans.com/features/junejones/helpwanted.php

just an interesting quetion: with all the division that hit this board last year about hiring high school coaches why do you support hiring another high school coach? wasn't one of the main points after the oklahoma game not to be embarrased by having the opposing coaches call our alignments high schoolish? any comments?

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&...0a&MSNHPHMA wait for the 30 sec advertisement to end. don't watch any of the hooter's girls ads......

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3333852.ece big brother is coming.

GM still has to work to feed his family, pay the mortgage, pay the bills, etc, etc, etc, just like everyone else. Personally I would not be too hard on the man at this transition point in his life.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../801120319/1006

coffee and tv..... pick up a newspaper and confirm what i said. 1. wanted to go into pakistan...............................FACT 2. wants manditory universal health coverage.......FACT 3. amnisty for illegals..........................................FACT as for limbaugh i can't stand to listen to him and all his self indulgence. i do, as apparently you don't, read various news sources concerning the issues including various world newspapers. www.world-newspapers.com I might recommend these.....you get them in the english version: The Times............................england The Telegraph......................england Pravda.................................russia a couple of Moscow papers.....russia Der Spiegal...........................germany Try out these web sites: www.thedrudgereport.....................has both conservative and liberal news sites www.hotair.com.............................mostly conservative but you can get a flavor of liberal views www.townhall.com.........................mostly conservative \ coffee & tv, basically, don't let other people tell you how to think......and i mean it in all honesty.......there is enough information out there where you can make an intelligent decision before you go off on one of your knee jerk reactions on what Obama wants to do. read what Barrack Hussain Obama said.....i did.......evidently you did not.

The Record Taxes Reagan-Bush-About 25% cut for all;business incentives;estate and marriage taxes reduced. Carter-Mondale-Nearly doubled in five years before Reagan-Bush. Inflation Reagan-Bush-3.9% in 1982, 3.8% in 1983, 4.2% so far in 1984. Carter-Mondale-13.3% in 1979, 12.4% in 1980. Prime Rate Reagan-Bush-Down eight points to 13%. Carter-Mondale-More than tripled in four years to 21%. Economic Growth Reagan-Bush-GNP up seven straight quarters, 7.1% rate, 2nd quarter 1984. Carter-Mondale-GNP down .3% in 1980. Workers’ Real Earnings Reagan-Bush-Up every year. Carter-Mondale-Down every year. Housing Starts Reagan-Bush-Nearly double the 1981 rate so far in 1984. Carter-Mondale-Down to 1.3 million in 1980 and falling to a low of under 1 million in 1981. Reducing Crime Reagan-Bush-1983-biggest drop in a generation; two years of decline for the first time since records kept. Carter-Mondale-Violent crimes rose 31% over four years. Stregthened Social Programs Reagan-Bush-Benefits redirected to needy and overall spending levels increased for child nutrition, food stamps, AFDC, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and Subsidized housing. Carter-Mondale-42% of income-tested benefits went to persons with incomes 150% of poverty. Restoring Respect Reagan-Bush-No hostile takeovers in four years as America is stregthened and stands by friends around the globe. Carter-Mondale-Hostile takeovers in Angola, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, Ethiopa, Nicaragua as U.S. stood by. ©2000-2007 by the 4President Corporation Carter also: 1. armed the sunni islamic radicals to overthrow the Iranian government. in return the ayatollah captured our Iranian embassy & 53 American for over a year. Oh yea, one failed attempt to get the American's back. Let me see if I remember......Regan told the Ayatollah to give back the Americans or he would bomb them into the stone age.....the second day of Reagan's presidency the 53 hostages were freed. 2. Carter supported Arafat because he felt that Isreal was the root cause of all the problems in the middle east........ 3. Carter gave away the Panama Canal.....now the canal is run by the Chinese. 4. Did nothing to support the Democatic government of Nicaragua against the communist takeover by the Sandinistas......hummmm.....seems like Reagan had to clean up that mess too by arming the Contras to take over their government again. 5. Did I mention gas prices going up from about 40 cents a gallon to over a buck.......how would you like to see our gas prices go up over 7 dollars a gallon today? 6. Carter took away various price controls set by the Nixon/Ford era and guess what.......zooooooom.......inflation....... 7. dude....nothing personal but you better ask you parents what it was financially like living uner Nixon.......then Carter........then Reagan. I can tell you this once Reagan got price controls under better management it was like getting an impacted turd removed. 8. IMHO, Carter is one of Americas 5 worst presidents......&......in no particular order: Carter, FDR, Clinton, Truman & Wilson.

JM- Clinton rode Reganomics into the ground.....and what is left of Reganomics Bush II is driving the nails in the coffin. Regan's policies took us out of resession under Carter. Most of you do not remember but a good interest rate on credit cards were at 25%. Mortgage rates ran up to 12-15% if you had excellent credit. Carter down sized the military so much all that the United States had was almost a coastal defense force. The military had virtually no spare parts for our equipment. Regan revitalized the country through his "trickle down economics." Tax cuts for business.....drove down interest rates, revitalized our almost depression, got our prisoners back from Iran, rebuilt the military, hunted down terrorists (the ones who supported aircraft highjackings), shot down several Libian aircraft of Kadafi and bombed Kadafi's house outside of Tripoli....would have gotten the dirtbag in his bedroom but he was sleeping in a tent outside. Kadafi never stayed in the same place for more than 12 hours after that until Regan left office. Regan restored democracy from the communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua by arming the Contras (that is where Ollie North was called to testify about the Iranian-Contra deal). He made the Russians believe we had super space weapons that could shoot down Soviet Missles which made the Soviets spend "billions upon billions" on a fabricated program that eventually bankrupted the Soviets on defense expenditures. Invaded Granada to keep the Russians and Cubans from building a 12,000 - 15,000 foot runway. Just thought it up and massed a secret plan to invade and did it without telling anyone. The press was livid about that.....but Regan never confided in the press much anyway and because of that the press always maligned Regan at every opportunity. Regan restored American Pride.

Democrats: Obama 1. stated he would invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden........200 million people.....a bunch a nukes... 2. stated he wants universal health care.....more money out of my pocket for another govt. program. 3. amnisty for all illegals......more money out of my pocket again for continued social services and an invitation for more to walk across the border and strain more money out of my pocket. Edwards 1. jail time for any american citizen who refuses all inclusive government health care..... 2. supports amnisty for all illegal aliens....see #3 for Obama. 3. reduce / eliminate large profits that corporation's make.........wouldn't that almost eliminate research/development, worker's incentives, gas/oil exploration and just about everything else corporations sponsor? sounds orwelian. Clinton 1. more social(ist) programs....such as: a) $2,000 for every baby born in the US (mexican anchor babies included) for college..........just take more of my paycheck. x) $2,000 for every family for retirement..........................................................................my wallet is getting lighter, again. c) Hillary care....do I need to say more. 2. amnisty for all illegals.....do I need to say more? 3. reduction of the military expenditures (again....from BC's 1st/2nd terms). Carter almost destroyed the military as did Clinton leaving the military with no spare parts and after he blasted just about all our cruise missles in Africa, Bosnia & Afganistan. Republicans Huckabe (IMHO) a right leaning democrat.....in republican clothing. 1. supports illegals in the US......in Arkansas, illegals received "in state tuition" and other free social services. 2. supports other big ticket social services and wants to expand services for all.......more of the same. 3. he does support the military. Romney 1. (IMHO) another right leaning democrat....in republican clothing. 2. Look at his expanded government in Mass. a) Boston a sancuary city for illegals. x) Big tax increases for the state......people call it Taxatucess....looks like more $$ in failed govt. programs. 3. Supports the military. 4. more of the same of Bush II. Guiliany (sp) 1. see Romney's bio. 2. wants to fine illegals for being here illegally.....a slap on the wrist. Thompson 1. Eliminate the IRS and use a consumpion tax or flat tax. 2. Reduce the power of the federal government and give more power back to the states...State's Rights....hummm....Jeffersonian and wasn't that one of the primary issues of the anti bellum south. 3. Supports the military...wants the US to keep strong tabs on rouge nuclear nations. 4. Reduce or eliminate most govt. social programs. 5. you ought to listen to Fred he is more specific about his issues than "any" of the candidates. 6. get rid of all illegals.....including anchor babies.......FT slammed Rudy on this issue several times. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/05/gop-...e-in-the-crowd/ Paul 1. Eliminate the IRS. 2. Troops out of Iraq and Afganistan....an isolationist so to speak on military matters....guess he wants to fight terrorists in America. 3. Eliminate the Federal Reserve System.....which is neither federal or a reserve.....just a private banking system like citi bank......well the last time that was seriously considered the President was shot in Dallas.....yes, J.F. Kennedy wanted the US back on the Gold Standard. The one I like is Fred Thompson. The democrats have not backed down on expanding government....all of them feel the government will solve all our ills through more govt. control. The republicans..... exept for Thompson and Paul... is more of the same and that is a government that continues to lean toward the left, little by little. -------this is just a thumb nail synopsis--------

Eagle1855- I don't know if a case of botox would help your avatar's looks.....she looks like she was rode hard and put up wet. Take a hint from SUMG and get an avatar like that.....................

CMJ- The reason why meds are more expensive in the United States is that OUR pharmacutical companies do the vast majority of research & development of new drugs. Other countries just copy what we develop.

http://www.troymessenger.com/articles/2008...ts/sports01.txt

nm

BJ- I think we all pretty much know that "free" hospitals are funded at the county level through taxes and have income limitations for the household but the point is that the hospitals provide "free" coverage for those who either indigent, illegal alien, no company provided insurance program (probably some some mom & pops company or sweatshop) or someone who wants to opt out of the company plan. Do you really want to wait 4-12 months for medical care under the English system that the Democrat's want?? Hillary Care is what I think they call it. IMHO, the "Open Market System" of free choice should dictate to any business not the government forcing me to accept Hillary Care. If some slothy person who is ill is too lazy to drive themself, or have someone drive them, to a free hospital/clinic to get treated for whatever they have then I "do not feel sorry for them." It is their choice to either get motivated to go to the hospital or lie on the Opra show about how they can not get coverage when they can get whatever "free" treatment they need at county hospitals. There are hospitals in California that are shutting their doors because treating illegal mexicans are bankrupting the system.....

BJ- Under this plan you would be willing to wait 5-6 months to see a doctor about, let us say, an apparent heart problem so the doctor could schedule you to see a specialist in another 5-6 months??? dude and i really mean dude.....you could,as fred samford would say, "Elizabeth, I'm comin' to see ya." that is why there are "free" hospitals all throughout the USA where you can get, pretty close to, immediate care if you don't mind waiting next to a bunch of people who can not speak english and look like they have come from a dog fight in del rio. Parkland Hospital in Dallas.............free John Peter Smith in Fort Worth.......free Back in the 1990's, in Houston there were 12 free hospitals and another 40 some odd free clinics. BJ, since you are a "vet," you can go to any Veteran's Hospitals and get free care. Personally I like competition in the workplace with doctors but I don't like having doctors be force to take extravegant policies to cover themselves from the plethora of trial lawyers, such as John Edwards, who sue for anything....real or fabricated. In England, for example, doctors who treat more patients than allowed by the government quota system can go to jail.....hum......that is what Hillary Care wanted back in Bill's first term. BTW, in England there are more people who die waiting for their doctor, after their scheduled appointment, than those who have not scheduled an appointment. The United States hospitals are full of people from other countries such as CANADA & ENGLAND and other socialized medicine countries because they can not get "immediate" health care and dont want to wait 4-12 months for medical care. John Edwards wants you to go jail if you refuse to take a health care plan. People who work have the choice to take health care or not and that is their choice.......not the governments. Employers have the right to offer health insurance or not......that is their choice and your choice to work for them or not......not the governments. All these crying women who are paraded on Opra and all these other shows who say someone close to them died because they did not have health insurance should have gone to one of the many "FREE" hospitals in the United States of America and gotten the problem treated. The government is NOT the solution to all our, so called, ills......the government is the "problem." in respect to pmg i will stop here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedu...8&year=2008 wins against 5 swac teams this year...is tcu trying to jump conferences again????