Senate votes to end $6 billion in ethanol subsidies (73-27)

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message news:itfia3>
>> > With the advances made it is now almost 2 to 1 return now. It may not
>> > be suger cane but the energy used to make ethanol from corn is MUCH
>> > less
>> > than even 2 years ago. AND it keeps $ in OUR country not some dam idiot
>> > hell bent on killing us alls pocket. That is not a throw away deal.
>> > KB
>>
>> That corn takes a lot of ammonia based fertilizer to grow well, and that
>> comes normally from petroleum
>
> No it Doesn't. Nowadays nitrogen is made using natural gas.
> And typically its made in places with a surplus of gas
> and where it is uneconomical to ship it anywhere

I used the generic term "petroleum" but in fact it has been made from
natural gas, as a source of hydrogen, for a long time. Since natural
gas also has value as a fuel, I think my point is still valid.


> In Brazil they test fuel economy with ethanol in the gas
> and in Brazil they sell cars that get better fuel economy with ethanol
> blends.

Actually, in Brasil you can still run your appropriate car on pure ethanol.
I lived there during the early years of this project, and it has helped them
to become independent of foreign oil to a degree that was not possible
before. I spoke earlier that I thought (know) ethanol can be a good
fuel. It was commercially successful in Brasil when there was a shortage
of petroleum products, including natural gas. Sugar cane requires no
fertilizer, and the distillation was at least partially fired by burning the
bagasse at the distillery. So dont tell me it can't be successful...that
was
my song back in the 70's, but the Brasilians made it work.

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
:

>
>
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message news:itfia3>
>> > With the advances made it is now almost 2 to 1 return now. It may
>> > not
>> > be suger cane but the energy used to make ethanol from corn is MUCH
>> > less than even 2 years ago. AND it keeps $ in OUR country not some
>> > dam idiot hell bent on killing us alls pocket. That is not a throw
>> > away deal. KB
>>
>> That corn takes a lot of ammonia based fertilizer to grow well, and
>> that comes normally from petroleum
>
> No it Doesn't. Nowadays nitrogen is made using natural gas.
> And typically its made in places with a surplus of gas
> and where it is uneconomical to ship it anywhere
>
>
>
>> Admittedly, recovered corn mash from
>> a distillation process could still be used in animal feed, and would
>> probably
>> make old "Daisy" even more contented.
>>
>> I like ethanol as a fuel in many ways, but I dont believe the ADM,
>> Congress, conspiracy was meant to help the most of us.
>>
>> Keeping our money out of the hands of foreigners (or Americans) who
>> have no loyalty to us is perhaps a good idea. We have enough natural
>> gas here in the continental USA to last for a long long time.
>>
>> I just see this all as a helterskelter grab for subsidy funds.
>
> They should end the subsidy. Tax it the same as gasoline
> It won't change anything.
> Ethanol is still cheaper than gasoline
> It will still be blended with gasoline
>
> What should be done is the EPA should
> test fuel economy with ethanol blended gasoline
> there are new cars that get better mileage with ethanol blends
> than straight gasoline

I have been experminting with up to 30% blends in all my non flex fuel
rangers and my 03 3.0 liter gets a little better milage, my 98 4.0 gets
the same and my 4 banger stick 07 Fusion gets about a half a mpg less, so
the 30% blend is deff saving me money. KB



> but it is illegal in the US for the manufacturer to advertise the
> mileage that a car gets with ethanol blends
>
> In Brazil they test fuel economy with ethanol in the gas
> and in Brazil they sell cars that get better fuel economy with ethanol
> blends.

"Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" > wrote in message news:4dfbad9f$0$19684>
> I hear bull**** works pretty well.
>
> No, really! They had a story on NBC a couple years ago where a guy was
> extracting methane from cow manure, using the methane to light something
> like 20 houses in his neighborhood, running his farm off it, and the left
> over waste was used for fertilizer.
>
> God knows we have PLENTY of bull**** in this country!
>
>

Some years ago, there was an article, perhaps in Mother Earth News about
a pottering little scientist, perhaps in Australia. He was charging a
reactor
with chicken ****, and using methanogenic bacterial to generate methane.
He then pumped it out and burned it in his little car. Worked very well,
according to the article..And there is plenty of THAT raw material here
too.

Kevin Bottorff wrote:

> > What should be done is the EPA should
> > test fuel economy with ethanol blended gasoline
> > there are new cars that get better mileage with ethanol blends
> > than straight gasoline
>
> I have been experminting with up to 30% blends in all my non flex fuel
> rangers and my 03 3.0 liter gets a little better milage, my 98 4.0 gets
> the same and my 4 banger stick 07 Fusion gets about a half a mpg less, so
> the 30% blend is deff saving me money. KB

Yes some cars do get better mileage and
the ratio where the best efficiency can be had is usually about 20%-30%

If the EPA allowed higher blends and allowed
car makers to test and advertise their fuel economy
using ethanol blends there would soon be many cars
available that got better mileage with ethanol blends

Today cars are by law designed and tested with fuel that contains no
ethanol
even though almost every gas tank has ethanol in it.

>
> > but it is illegal in the US for the manufacturer to advertise the
> > mileage that a car gets with ethanol blends
> >
> > In Brazil they test fuel economy with ethanol in the gas
> > and in Brazil they sell cars that get better fuel economy with ethanol
> > blends.

hls wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> >
> > hls wrote:
> >>
> >> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message news:itfia3>
> >> > With the advances made it is now almost 2 to 1 return now. It may not
> >> > be suger cane but the energy used to make ethanol from corn is MUCH
> >> > less
> >> > than even 2 years ago. AND it keeps $ in OUR country not some dam idiot
> >> > hell bent on killing us alls pocket. That is not a throw away deal.
> >> > KB
> >>
> >> That corn takes a lot of ammonia based fertilizer to grow well, and that
> >> comes normally from petroleum
> >
> > No it Doesn't. Nowadays nitrogen is made using natural gas.
> > And typically its made in places with a surplus of gas
> > and where it is uneconomical to ship it anywhere
>
> I used the generic term "petroleum" but in fact it has been made from
> natural gas, as a source of hydrogen, for a long time. Since natural
> gas also has value as a fuel, I think my point is still valid.

You didn't state a point.

If the point you are back-handedly implying is ethanol
uses a lot of imported petroleum
then your point is not valid

The US imports 70% of its oil
Most of the energy used to make ethanol comes
from domestically produced natural gas not imported oil



> > In Brazil they test fuel economy with ethanol in the gas
> > and in Brazil they sell cars that get better fuel economy with ethanol
> > blends.
>
> Actually, in Brasil you can still run your appropriate car on pure ethanol.
> I lived there during the early years of this project, and it has helped them
> to become independent of foreign oil to a degree that was not possible
> before. I spoke earlier that I thought (know) ethanol can be a good
> fuel. It was commercially successful in Brasil when there was a shortage
> of petroleum products, including natural gas. Sugar cane requires no
> fertilizer, and the distillation was at least partially fired by burning the
> bagasse at the distillery. So dont tell me it can't be successful...that
> was
> my song back in the 70's, but the Brasilians made it work.

Your badly misinformed. Brazilian growers use 80% of the nitrogen to
produce a gallon of ethanol that American growers do. The difference is
that after you make ethanol from corn you have a large amount of high
protean livestock feed left. That is where the extra nitrogen ends up -
the production of protein

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:35:23 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> On 06/16/2011 08:45 PM, hls wrote:
>>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >
>>> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
>>> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
>>> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> It IS renewable, whether made from sugar cane, potatoes, or corn.
>> It just isnt a good deal. It is a pork pie from congress to Archer
>> Daniels Midland.
>> There MUST be better ways.
>>
>
> I don't consider it renewable if it takes an equivalent amount of other
> (usually fossil fuel) energy to produce. Now if you could power all
> your farm equipment on ethanol and still have some left over to sell,
> then it'd be "renewable."
>
> nate


I hear bull**** works pretty well.

No, really! They had a story on NBC a couple years ago where a guy was
extracting methane from cow manure, using the methane to light something
like 20 houses in his neighborhood, running his farm off it, and the left
over waste was used for fertilizer.

God knows we have PLENTY of bull**** in this country!

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...n+Chicken+Fuel

A guy in England did it.Seems like it worked great for him.
cuhulin

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
:

>
>
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> >
>> > hls wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message news:itfia3>
>> >> > With the advances made it is now almost 2 to 1 return now. It
>> >> > may not
>> >> > be suger cane but the energy used to make ethanol from corn is
>> >> > MUCH less
>> >> > than even 2 years ago. AND it keeps $ in OUR country not some
>> >> > dam idiot hell bent on killing us alls pocket. That is not a
>> >> > throw away deal. KB
>> >>
>> >> That corn takes a lot of ammonia based fertilizer to grow well,
>> >> and that comes normally from petroleum
>> >
>> > No it Doesn't. Nowadays nitrogen is made using natural gas.
>> > And typically its made in places with a surplus of gas
>> > and where it is uneconomical to ship it anywhere
>>
>> I used the generic term "petroleum" but in fact it has been made from
>> natural gas, as a source of hydrogen, for a long time. Since
>> natural gas also has value as a fuel, I think my point is still
>> valid.
>
> You didn't state a point.
>
> If the point you are back-handedly implying is ethanol
> uses a lot of imported petroleum
> then your point is not valid
>
> The US imports 70% of its oil
> Most of the energy used to make ethanol comes
> from domestically produced natural gas not imported oil
>
>
>
>> > In Brazil they test fuel economy with ethanol in the gas
>> > and in Brazil they sell cars that get better fuel economy with
>> > ethanol blends.
>>
>> Actually, in Brasil you can still run your appropriate car on pure
>> ethanol. I lived there during the early years of this project, and it
>> has helped them to become independent of foreign oil to a degree that
>> was not possible before. I spoke earlier that I thought (know)
>> ethanol can be a good fuel. It was commercially successful in
>> Brasil when there was a shortage of petroleum products, including
>> natural gas. Sugar cane requires no fertilizer, and the
>> distillation was at least partially fired by burning the bagasse at
>> the distillery. So dont tell me it can't be successful...that was
>> my song back in the 70's, but the Brasilians made it work.
>
> Your badly misinformed. Brazilian growers use 80% of the nitrogen to
> produce a gallon of ethanol that American growers do. The difference
> is that after you make ethanol from corn you have a large amount of
> high protean livestock feed left. That is where the extra nitrogen
> ends up - the production of protein
>

and it is a high quality feed that is very good for beef and works pretty
good for hogs and poultry also. It is used heavyly here for all of em.
KB

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message >
> Your badly misinformed. Brazilian growers use 80% of the nitrogen to
> produce a gallon of ethanol that American growers do. The difference is
> that after you make ethanol from corn you have a large amount of high
> protean livestock feed left. That is where the extra nitrogen ends up -
> the production of protein

Im not misinformed about anything. These are two different fermentation
sources, two slightly different concepts. The sugar mills, in general,
also produce the alcohol.

Nitrogen fertilizers are not needed to produce crops like mandioca,
potatoes, or sugar cane.

On 06/17/2011 04:40 PM, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:35:23 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> On 06/16/2011 08:45 PM, hls wrote:
>>>
>>> "Nate > wrote in message>
>>>> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
>>>> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
>>>> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>
>>> It IS renewable, whether made from sugar cane, potatoes, or corn.
>>> It just isnt a good deal. It is a pork pie from congress to Archer
>>> Daniels Midland.
>>> There MUST be better ways.
>>>
>>
>> I don't consider it renewable if it takes an equivalent amount of other
>> (usually fossil fuel) energy to produce. Now if you could power all
>> your farm equipment on ethanol and still have some left over to sell,
>> then it'd be "renewable."
>>
>> nate
>
>
> I hear bull**** works pretty well.
>
> No, really! They had a story on NBC a couple years ago where a guy was
> extracting methane from cow manure, using the methane to light something
> like 20 houses in his neighborhood, running his farm off it, and the left
> over waste was used for fertilizer.
>
> God knows we have PLENTY of bull**** in this country!
>
>

now that is good common sense. hope that the idea spreads (so to speak.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel