Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Snakeyes, No extra cost, no smells ... NOTHING. It is a no cost option, and always has been. We can grow the Corn for it ... heck we PAY farmers NOT to grow corn.

The vehicle even gets about 33 MPG highway .... and seats 6.

It is pretty amazing, when you think about it.

Knowing how gov't works, a national sales tax will likely be implemented without the repeal of any other taxes. We'll have an even greater burden.
Not an expert here, but I believe alcohol burns much hotter than gasoline, resulting in shortened engine life or added manufacturing costs.
I'm one who would like to see the unfettered and groundless Bush-bashing end (not just here, but everywhere). I felt the same way when Clinton was getting crucified for having a little sport on the side.
If I were President I would be overwhelmed by the honor to serve in that capacity. I believe that every President feels that way. Sure, sometimes it takes some dealing to get things done, but I believe that every President in my lifetime wanted what was best for his country.
So, to disagree with policy is understandable, but to just be hatin' - that is ugly. And it looks like post-Jerry Springer America is eating it up.

BigWill, other than shortened Engine life, GREAT post ... Seriously ... There literally is NO downside to the Flex Fuel engine. Well ... And the National sales tax as the bill sits in Congress DOES eliminate Fica and income Taxes ... www.fairtax.org is THE source for info, if anyone wants to check it out.

Any flex fuel hybrids on the horizon?

Gimme a flex fuel hybrid four door that doesn't look like sin, and has the standard performance of a midsize 4 cylinder, I'll all over it. (something like the honda civic hybrid, but runs on E85)

I'll be displaying my ignorance (and laziness) here, but these flex fuel engines are not designed to run on PURE ethanol, correct? They are still burning gas, right, with just a higher mixture of alcohol in the fuel? It was either in an environmental science class eons ago, or in the newspaper, that I read PURE alcohol burned in engines would require extensive engine mods. If so then y'all are just talking about forestalling the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels. Not that that is bad, but it doesn't actually solve the problem.
I don't see such radical change as the nat'l sales tax happening overnight. Congress is too chickensh!t to do anything that substantive. I can see a far more likely scenario of the sales tax being phased in and income taxes being phased out.
Unfortunately, I fear that in the inevitable temporary economic downturn, with federal tax revenue plummeting, they will decide they need to keep (or reinstate) the income tax, as well. In such a case (massive gov't shortfall) raising the sales tax would not be an option, as that would only further dampen recovery. Where's the cash gonna come from? Knowing gov't, any reserve will be spent and replaced with IOUs ala Social Security.

Ethanol fuel comes in a few forms.

From Ethanol.org

Also referred to as ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol, or ETOH, ethanol is a clear liquid with an agreeable odor. Ethanol is made by fermenting and distilling simple sugars. Today, ethanol is a fuel produced from crops such as corn, grain sorghum, wheat, sugar, and other agricultural feedstocks. Most fuel ethanol produced in the U.S. is derived from corn—latest figures indicate that just over 10% of the U.S. corn crop is dedicated to ethanol production. In Brazil, the world’s top producer of ethanol, sugar is the primary feedstock. Since it is produced from crops or plants that harness the power of the sun, ethanol is considered a renewable fuel.

Pure fuel ethanol contains chemical properties identical to that of other grain alcohol. As such, it must be denatured or made unfit for human consumption. In the U.S., the most common denaturant is gasoline. There are three major types of fuel ethanol:

E95 : Pure ethanol, or the alcohol produced in an ethanol production facility. E95 must be denatured so humans cannot consume it. While it can be used by some vehicles in its pure form, most E95 is currently blended with gasoline for resale in petroleum markets.

E85 : A mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, E85 is a leading alternative fuel used in the U.S. Over 3.5 million autos run on E85 fuel, and it can be purchased at approximately 200 refueling sites in the U.S. When E85 is not available, these “flexible” fuel vehicles can operate on any blend of ethanol or straight unleaded gasoline.

E10 : The most common from of ethanol, E10 contains 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Nearly 3 billion gallons of ethanol is consumed each year in the U.S., the vast majority of which is E10. All automobile manufacturers in the U.S. approve the use of E10.

Approximately 30% of all gasoline consumed in the United States was blended with ethanol in 2004. Because the ethanol molecule contains oxygen, it allows an auto engine to more completely combust fuel, resulting in fewer emissions. Fuel ethanol blends are successfully used in all types of vehicles and engines that require gasoline. Approval of ethanol blends is found in the owners' manuals under references to refueling or gasoline.

So yes, what's used in auto's is a blend, but E85 is a HUGE step towards weening ourselves off oil.

Personally I have my doubts about ethanol as our great hope for energy independence. It takes a lot of processing and a lot of energy to make ethanol from corn... but we can make BEER with less energy... hmmm.

The other problem is that if we want to fight greenhouse gases we need to be fixing carbon and absorbing carbon dioxide, not giving it off during processing :

"Co-Products. There are two main co-products created in the production of ethanol: distillers grain and carbon dioxide. Distillers grain, wet or dry, is a valuable livestock feed. Carbon dioxide is given off in great quantities during fermentation and many ethanol plants collect, compress, and sell it for use in other industries. "

http://www.ethanol.org/howethanol.html

The most promising approach I have seen is biodiesel... a mix of about 85% oil produced directly from an algae bed and 15% ethanol produced in the current way. The downside is that you need a diesel engine instead of a regular gasoline engine, but the upside is that MUCH less processing is required (no harvesting, no fermentation, no distillation) and at first glance the CO2 production seems to be much less.

The only way we're going to fix the CO2 levels is either to replant a few million square miles of forest (unlikely) or start pulling a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere back into fuel products. I think we're actually going to have to do both, which is going to be a real challenge unless we get our population growth under control.

Canada is still addicted to immigration for population growth and growing our way out of our accumulated debt... and I imagine the US is going to be thinking the same way after the deficits of the last few years. Trouble is that we have to keep chopping down forests and building on farmers fields in order to accomodate the ever-growing population, and we're not going to fix the carbon problem that way.

Our government's commitment to the Kyoto summit is a dangerous joke; regrettably very few up here seem to understand that. At least the US government had the intelligence not to sign the protocol without a viable plan to actually DO something about it.

IMO biodiesel is the solution.

In reply to:

---

You then said I was "more like Dubya than you are like me" and "which is why we have very opposite opinions." You were very clearly attempting to state that I must also have all those detriments you apply to our president

---

i been busy this weekend, no time to respond.

no craig, i was not "clearly attemping to state" anything... like i said, this is a translation problem. you are reading it differently than i am meaning it.. i wasnt trying to make any other degrading comparisons, like you think i am. i aint the type of guy to try and attack people, and i would hope that my history on this board would prove that.

i feel as though i have touched some kinda 'nerve' with you, by your statements about this not being the first time you have been accused to have "daddys money". honestly, since i didnt or wasnt trying to say this about you, i dont feel i need to respond.. but..... i think your interpretation of this whole conversation might be influenced by how quick your defenses came up about that subject. so, as far as i am concerned, its a done deal.. i will be more than happy to take responsibilty for whatever part i have played..

In reply to:

---

But ... If it is now your position that you meant nothing in the way of an attack on me, ok

---

you say this like i have changed my mind at some point? i was NEVER attacking you.. there is no ned to be defensive about this. as far as i am concerned, its over...

BTW- i paid $2.13 for regular unleaded yesterday.

bigjohn

Sure, BJ ... Whatever you say.

Thanks for the info spiff and bridgman. I had assumed it was all E10. Not sure about the carbon fixing forest stuff - that's new to me. Whne I was in college they were all talking about the O2 produstion lost by the loss of forests. Of course, now everybody knows that the little critters in the ocean produce 98% of the O2. Maybe they invented a new vital function for the trees?

Convincing America may not be too, too difficult, but what about the Chinese? Eventually they're gonna have to start paying their workers more that the $1-2 per day they're getting now. When they do, they'll be buying cars and burning gas like no tomorrow.