His stance on ethanol sets Cal professor apart

Contra Costa Times ^ | 9/26/5 | Judy Silber

[Neoliberalnot]

Sex in a car. You animal you. LOL Sorry. Let me say, I'm not that way anymore.

[radioman]

I put a 20% ethanol gas in my VW once and the thing made the most horrible sounds -- I thought it was going to die.

ROFL!
Been there...Here's what you have to do on your VW.
1967 and older, you have to change heads. 1968 and newer, your heads are ok to use. You need the newer low compression heads. Set your deck height at least .070. Generally, that means one .020 cylinder spacer.

You need a high performance ignition. I use Omni-Pak. Stock ignition will not fire flooded plugs and that's what gives you the rough starts.

You'll need a larger main jet. Buy a selection of jets, they're cheap, and experiment for best performance.

If you like working on your own car, you will love the benefits of running alcohol in your VW.
If you want to build a hot VW, stay with the stock camshaft and use ratio rockers instead of a hot cam. VW does not like the steep ramp of the high performance cams, especially when running alcohol. Ratio rockers give all the increase of the hot cam without the disadvantages.
.

[flashbunny]

one last thought, to cut through all the debate:

If ethanol is so great so efficient, why do we have to subsidize it?

Simple question. If it was a better product, people would be beating down the doors of ethanol producers to buy their product.

Instead, the ethanol producers and corn growers are constantly sticking their hands in our wallets telling us how they can't survine without our subsidies.

Can't be both. One or the other. Self-sufficient super product or taxpayer funded boondoggle.

Choose.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"Why should people be driving big trucks and SUVs that get 10 mpg when they could be driving full sized cars"

Go ride a bike.

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

LOL. Are you for real? I'm arguing that the more accurate costs of the US energy policy should be charged to those who benefit from it, and now I'm a jack-booted thug trying to FORCE you to pay for what you get? LMAO!

[B Knotts]

Too bad we can't buy 'em here.

DCX is reconsidering, though, and may sell the fortwo in the U.S. in the 2007 model year.

[antiRepublicrat]

lternative motor fuels will not be developed unless government restrictions on producers and sellers are lifted

We're restricting it? We're subsidizing and pushing ethanol.

[-YYZ-]

Hey, well best of luck with the harvest. I meant no disrespect to hard working farmers with my comments - just a comment on the economics of the industry, or at least my imperfect understanding of them. Be careful out there - that farm machinery can be dangerous, as I'm sure you know.

[flashbunny]

"LOL. Are you for real? I'm arguing that the more accurate costs of the US energy policy should be charged to those who benefit from it, and now I'm a jack-booted thug trying to FORCE you to pay for what you get? LMAO!"

Wow, you're a real bright one, aren't you?

They already pay for it.

You use more gas, you pay more gas taxes.

Wow, amazing.

And you want to cloak yourself as a person who cares about freedom, yet you don't know the difference between 'individual responsiblity' and 'government coercion'.

You know, I'm thinking you may be one of those stealth trolls who take a freedem-related name and then goes around advocating more government interference in our lives.

[antiRepublicrat]

Been there...Here's what you have to do on your VW.

Not a Bug. But I don't own it anymore anyway. I still want to get a diesel and make biodiesel from the leftovers of the local fish fry place.

[Double Tap]

Thanks.

Have you seen the price of Natural Gas lately?

Nuclear is still the answer.

[flashbunny]

BTW, A true 'liberty' oriented position wouldn't involve punishing US citizens for the horrible energy policy of its government.

If you're concerned about the big, evil a-rabs benefiting from our gas money, HAVE YOUR POLITICIANS ALLOW FOR DOMESTIC PRODUCTION!

Don't sit around doing the work of liberals, arguing for more government control! Argue for more freedom!

Again, your taste for liberty only goes as far as your personal bias. After that point, you want control.

[flashbunny]

The real answer is getting the federal government out of the 'energy policy' business.

They've been involved in it for how many years now, and things have only gotten worse. Let the market (the consumers - you and me) decide.

[Neoliberalnot]

Not a problem. Same goes here. You know, I haven't read too many comments on this site that really bother me, with the exception of the occasional hateful troll, and it would be a great pleasure to meet many of the members in person. I wager we could really have a good time together and find an alternative use for ethanol. Ethanol is not just an energy source for vehicles, but also is an energy substrate for many humans, not to mention the adverse side effects on the central nervous system.

One final comment--most businesses receive some type of government subsidy in the form of tax breaks, delayed taxes, etc.-- the driveling liberals call this corporate welfare. Last time I checked though, welfare recipients don't have to work for their subsidies. Towns and cities often attract new businesses using these techniques; it isn't just restricted to farming. FWIW

[Double Tap]

While I agree with you, the feds are not the only problem. State goverenments are hurting us as well.

[radioman]

We're restricting it? We're subsidizing and pushing ethanol.

Yes. EPA and political control of small producers and sellers keep cheap fuels out of the market. If you think that is not the case, just try to open your own alternative fuel station.
We are not pushing ethanol. We are playing the subsidize and study game. Too many leeches are getting tax payer money to study ethanol. The subsidies are just pork for corporate farms, and serve only to kill the ethanol market. Let producers produce and let the marketplace decide the outcome.
You can not legislate invention.
.

[spunkets]

"Would the University of Chicago's Argonne National Laboratory be OK with you?"

That paper in your link is not a scientific paper. It's a bunch of powerpoint plots. The whole thing is pure BS though. It starts out immediately with this on page 3:

"Energy balance value for fuel ethanol alone is not meaningful in evaluating it's benfits."

That's ridiculous, because that's the whole point of the topic and exercise. That's a lead in to the rest of their con.

Fig 6 shows a graph of "Fossil energy ratio". The def for that quantity is:

E content of fuel / Fossil Einput to make it.

The plot is clearly wrong, because it shows ERcorn as greater than ER gasoline. The whole paper is political and dishonest to the max. It appears to be written by a social worker also.

[flashbunny]

Yep. State governments run by politicians who are looking out for special interest lobbies instead of the taxpayers. NIMBYs and environmental activists and judges going against increasing our energy production.

Pretty soon one of the most naturual resource rich nations is starved for energy.

How sad.

[antiRepublicrat]

EPA and political control of small producers and sellers keep cheap fuels out of the market.

If we're talking EPA, I don't think it's a conspiracy against other fuels. That organization is just evil. It'll take forever to get them to set rules for alternate fuel stations, let alone approve any.

Let producers produce and let the marketplace decide the outcome.

Excellent idea, but I don't think it'll succeed given the cost and the energy required to make ethanol.

[flashbunny]

"That paper in your link is not a scientific paper. It's a bunch of powerpoint plots. "

You mean 4 bullet points per page and big, colorful graphics don't make it a research paper?!?!?

I want my tax dollars back!