JIM5.0

Yes, there is some hypocracy, but from my point of view, it is really not that hypocratic. The faming industry is one big corporate racket, like ADM and such that squeezed out the small farmers to near non-existence.

Yes, the big coporate farming operations might put some people back to work, but going to much more reliance on ethanol will eventually put our farmlands at a saturation point where their production will not be able to meet mandated requirements. Thus, we will have to import crops from other countries. The key countries these imports will come from will very much likely be South America, where those inefficient and primitive farming operations will burn down precious oxigen producing and carbon scrubbing rain forests. And there is no way corn crop will ever be capable of doing what rain forsts do today. You would have to have some super-fly seriously gen-modded corn to yield as much crop for ethanol, yet be able to produce as much oxygen and scrub as much co2 as a jungle forest tree.

The EPA is at fault for being much too agressive, that is what I mean about their help in driving jobs to China. There are about a dozen or so more other factors why jobs go to China, but we have to admit, the EPA's unwillingness to be more flexible is one of them. That is all I am saying, I am not saying the EPA is the sole reason why jobs go away.


As for higher octane ratings, yes, you are correct. You CAN run higher compression ratios and such, but lets be more realistic: even though a 5.0 Coyote is not a 30MPG engine, and we bought these more for performance, more of us do not go all ***** out performance. Most of use acually want some MPG efficiency, and getting above 20MPG while STILL having 400 crank BHP at the gas pedal is actually a bragging right.
It is contradictory, but I bet more Coyote owners brag that not only do they get 400 crank HP, but they also could get up to 26MPG in addition to that power.

BruceH

At this point you lost all credibility. There is no need in debating this subject if you won't at least have the common courtesy to have accurate data instead of repeating sound bites of bad info.

JIM5.0

If you mean this just as a continuation of a debate, that is good, but at least try to be a little more fiendly or at the very least, neutral sounding in tone.

I was just having a disagreement with Siggy, and it was not meant to be a stab at him either.
He is right that there is hypocracy on the issue, but the deception is actually from both sides.

Now, just because someone makes a claim without numbers, don't assume that they are not credible.
It is one thing to be skeptical, but calling someone as not credible does sound like a stab.
If you want numbers, it would be best to ask for it instead of trying to pry it out of them by saying "you lost all credibility."

I do not have reliable sources on-line, but here are some web quick links on the issue written by titled experts:
http://www.satireandcomment.com/sc0308ethanol.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-...tinues-a258148
http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

Now, since we are talking about providing data and souces of information, anyone can always take that argument too far. For example, for these quick references I made, someone else can say "So, you at least gave sources, but what are those guy's sources?" And then "What are the sources of those guys' sourcess' sources?"
It is a never ending fallacy of misdirection when you begin to question a source's source's source's...etc.

Here is another source that is actually published by the US D.O.E, and it agues against what I argue
http://www.energy.gov/media/Myths_and_Facts.pdf
However, I ask the very same question you do: What are their data and their sources to derive this information?

And additionally to data, even if it is provided to you, there is no way to prove that it is not cooked. The manipulation of data, even to the point of down-right lies, are all over.

Speaking of data not being provided, Al Gore "conviniently" lost all his data he used for his movie, The Inconvinient Truth when he was challenged to give it.

Goldenpony

Just remember this, the smoking ban STARTED OUT just to be on the front part of airplanes. Look what happened.

JIM5.0

I agree, and this is what I mean that regulations like these are too agressive.

It is actually up to us, the voters, to apply pressure the other direction so that the progression of aggressive regs do not go too far.

Teggsan

Exactly. Ethanol requirements are nothing more than welfare for the (mostly corporate) farmers and Archer Daniels Midland.

You can meet the same oxygenation spec with MTBE.

BruceH

You are correct, I was being less than friendly. My experience comes from living and working on a farm and knowing how much excess grain is produced in the USA and how it got to be that way. You are also correct about how we could get into an endless circle of points that can't be proven. American farmers have been producing too much grain for decades. This time of year elevators get so much it exceeds their storage capacity and it's put into huge piles until it can all be taken away. This all started in the 1970's when the American farmer was put to the task of feeding the world. This was when Earl Butz was the Secretary of Agriculture. They employed new technologies and increased yields. The reward was bumper crops and grain surplus which lead to falling prices and bankruptcies. Thanks for providing the links but I'll tell you I'm not going to read them. No discredit to you but I've read alot of ag and ethanol related material that I don't agree with and my disagreement comes from personal experience in grain production. I've had this debate too many times to put any more energy into it. No hard feelings but this is the point for me to exit the debate. We aren't going to change each others minds. I do agree with anyone who wants to end farming subsidies. It is counterproductive to any business and invites complacency, including agricultre. You may want to look up how much help the petroleoum industry gets from us, the taxpayer.