1 posted on
03/19/2008 10:16:37 PM PDT by
neverdem
To: neverdem
2 posted on
03/19/2008 10:18:54 PM PDT by
BRL
To: neverdem
We’re doomed. What insanity!
To: neverdem
Yup. You expect this kind of ignorance and incompetence from Democrats, but the bozos ‘leading’ the Republican party are just as guilty, if not more so.
4 posted on
03/19/2008 10:23:36 PM PDT by
LegendHasIt
(Noone/Nohow '08)
To: neverdem
Yup. You expect this kind of ignorance and incompetence from Democrats, but the bozos ‘leading’ the Republican party are just as guilty, if not more so.
5 posted on
03/19/2008 10:24:02 PM PDT by
LegendHasIt
(Noone/Nohow '08)
To: neverdem
Every time they screw with the market, we get screwed.
To: neverdem
It's almost as if our government lacks foresight and competence...
Nah, that couldn't be...
To: neverdem
Same old BS!
Who eats 450# of feed-corn per year? The sky is falling! Ethanol will kill us all!
Brazil is magic, we can't do what they have done. The highly profitable ethanol plants only run on government dollars. Why invest in alternative fuels now when we can keep giving Oil barons our money and trust them to wean us off of their product. The status quo cannot be improved in my lifetime, I'll fight progress away from petroleum till I die. Make my kids drink MTBE, anything but natural safe renewable bio-fuel.
11 posted on
03/19/2008 11:03:56 PM PDT by
ME-262
(Nancy Pelosi is known to the state of CA to render Viagra ineffective causing reproductive harm.)
To: neverdem
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove.Ethanol is hydroscopic and, even if one could temporarily remove all water, it absorbs water from the surrounding atmosphere.
16 posted on
03/19/2008 11:56:37 PM PDT by
Rudder
(Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
To: neverdem
And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Williams appears to be off by a factor of several hundred on this figure alone:
"In general, the production of ethanol consumes roughly four gallons of water for every one gallon of ethanol produced, although the figure ranges from 3.5 to 6 in Minnesota ethanol plants. This figure varies from plant to plant depending on the processes that each plant uses to produce the fuel. In general, newer plants have been growing more efficient with their water use." - link
To: neverdem
22 posted on
03/20/2008 1:02:15 AM PDT by
shibumi
(".....panta en pasin....." - Origen)
To: neverdem
It’s a sin to burn food. This is where I start at.
We need to be digging up our clean Western coal reserves. Make it into electricity and run more electric cars
28 posted on
03/20/2008 1:51:09 AM PDT by
dennisw
(Never bet on a false prophet! <<<||>>> Never bet on Islam!)
To: neverdem
Given the choice I definitely prefer Brazilian ethanol. (:^o)
32 posted on
03/20/2008 2:20:47 AM PDT by
RoadKingSE
(How do you know that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a muzzle flash?)
To: CygnusXI; enough_idiocy; rdl6989; TenthAmendmentChampion; Horusra; Normandy; Delacon; Fiddlstix; ...
Global Warming Scam News & Views
|
To: neverdem
If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Proof that ethanol is viable.
40 posted on
03/20/2008 3:17:28 AM PDT by
NoLibZone
(Duncan Hunter- The very Govts unwilling to support us in the WOT got the Fuel Tanker Deal)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson