ethanol to gasoline relationship - was Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Found a link comparing -- ethanol to gasoline relationship. Includes E-85, compression ratio, mpg, emissions, supercharger Also a through Properties of Fuels including: gasoline, diesel fuel, methanol, ethanol, MTBE, propane, CNG, hydrogen. http://www.e85fuel.com/information/fuelproperties.htm If your interested in Chevron Texaco RFG (reformulated gasolines), ethanol H2O. Chapter 4 OXYGENATED GASOLINE http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/ch4.shtml Efficiency Improvements Associated with Ethanol-Fueled Spark-Ignition Engines http://www.swri.org/4org/d03/engres/spkeng/sprkign/pbeffimp.htm Reference: 03-1438 Client: U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Duration: Sixteen Months Objective: Evaluate how ethanol may be used for improved efficiency of spark-ignition engines while maintaining very low emissions and to demonstrate some of those improvements on the DOE/NREL/SwRI Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV), a modified 1993 Ford Taurus with a 3.0-liter V-6 engine. Approach: Computer simulations were used to estimate brake thermal efficiencies and fuel efficiencies of various engine concepts. Because of the very high octane number of ethanol (100), high compression ratios are possible, increasing thermal efficiency significantly. A number of modifications were made to the engine and vehicle to first reduce emissions to ULEV levels and to improve the efficiency. These changes include the following: The OEM engine/vehicle control system was replaced with an SwRI Rapid Prototyping Electronic Control System (RPECS) to allow complete flexibility in changing engine and aftertreatment hardware and control strategies. The compression ratio was increased from 9.3:1 to 12.0:1 to take advantage of the high octane number of E-85 (85% denatured ethanol/15% gasoline), increasing efficiency about 8% compared with the baseline engine. Close-coupled catalysts were added in addition to the OEM main catalysts. A new catalyst light-off system, fast-light off port combustion, was added to the vehicle. Air-assist injectors designed at SwRI were used to provide fine spray atomization for improved cold-start and better emissions. Accomplishments: The 1993 Ford Taurus demonstrator vehicle met ULEV emissions over the U.S. FTP-75 urban cycle with efficiency equal to OEM vehicle: OEM Vehicle1, Modified Vehicle 1, ULEV Standard 2 CO (g/mi) 1.55 0.30 1.70 NOx (g/mi) 0.13 0.03 0.020 NMOG 3 (g/mi) 0.1470.015 0.040 Mileage 4 (mpg) 20.46 20.84 ÷ 1 Measured at about 4,000 miles 2 At 50,000 miles 3 Estimated based on reactivity factor of 0.67 4 Gasoline equivalent mileage based on BTU content Current modifications are being made to further improve the efficiency, including tests at the new 12.0:1 compression ratio, cutting off one of the air-assist pumps after the warm-up period, and advancing the ignition timing. Computer modeling has shown three other engine technologies that look particularly attractive for high-efficiency, low-emissions, ethanol-fueled, spark-ignition engines: Direct-injected, lean-burn/stoichiometric engine. Because the heat of vaporization of ethanol is 2.4 times that of gasoline and the octane number is in excess of 100, compression ratios of about 15:1 are possible with direct-injection, giving optimized efficiency for a spark-ignition engine. Lean-burn combustion is used for high efficiency, and stoichiometric combustion for high power. Direct-injected, high-EGR, stoichiometric engine. Using excess EGR instead of excess air allows a lean-burn engine to be operated at a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, permitting the use of 3-way catalysts to give low NOx emissions, a technology that is not possible under lean-burn conditions. Small-displacement, supercharged engine. Most light-duty engines are operated at road-load powers of 10 hp or so for most of their operating time, with relatively poor efficiencies because of the very high throttling losses. Reducing the engine displacement allows an engine to be operated at the same power with reduced throttling losses, while the addition of a supercharger allows recovery of power equivalent to the larger displacement, naturally aspirated engine. Ethanol, with its very high octane number (100), permits the use of a supercharger without reducing the compression ratio, while a gasoline fueled engine would exhibit knock under the same conditions. For further information, please contact Lee Dodge Related Publications: SAE Paper 970531, Model-Based Control and Cylinder-Event-Based Logic for an Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle, by D.M. Leone, L.G. Dodge, K.R. Shouse, J. Grogan, and R.W.
RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
FYI- Octane number: iso-octane = 100 heptane = 0 ethanol = 113 kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/01/2002 05:30 PM Please respond to biofuel To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com cc: (bcc: Shaen Rooney/APCP/DEQ/MODNR) Subject:RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again They changed the way of measuring octane rating. Ethyl alcohol was 100 under the old system. Probably a higher number under the new system. Optimum compression is just before it detonates. Race cars ran 13.5 to 1 with alcohol. The more you put your foot in something the hotter it gets. If racers ran 13.5 to 1 grandma could probably run a but higher. Fuel efficiency is directly proportional to compression ratio. Kirk -Original Message- From: MH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:34 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again steve spence wrote: Gasoline is ~118,000 BTU/gallon Diesel is ~135,000 BTU/gallon Ethanol is ~80,000 BTU/gallon BioDiesel is ~117,000 BTU/gallon this, btw, is very interesting. take the time to go through it all. http://www.tc.gc.ca/envaffairs/climate/doc_converti/Etoh/ETOH-FNL-RPTAug30-1 999.htm http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/magrack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm http://www.afdc.nrel.gov/questions.html Thank you Steve! Have not read through entirely but question energy value that does not, I think, consider Internal Combustion (IC) engine compression ratio (CR) and ethanol OH, octane boost. For example (e.g.): http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/magrack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm The energy value of a gallon of ethanol varies from 75,700 BTU 84,000 BTU depending on burning temperature. We will use a figure of 80,000 BTU as this is the energy value of ethanol burning at 25 degrees C. If eye remember correctly 100% ethanol optimally utilizes about 12:1 CR. As the ethanol to gasoline ratio increases ideally so should CR. With increased compression also temperature. I don't have a link at this time but what I understand is ethanol to gasoline relationship begins to balance or equalize efficiency (mpg) when engine/fuel specific CR is observed. The OH provides a measurable increase in complete combustion magnified by CR (ideally) suitable for ethanol octane rating. I believe I read this as well in the The Mother Earth News (TMEN) article about their ethanol pick up truck conversion or Steve or Keith's site on ethanol production. What I've observed with my GeMe is increased mpg with E-10/gasohol more then not. The station pumps reads: gasoline 87 octane, E-10/gasohol 89 octane. Again thank you Steve for the links and will read further. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 4/17/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 4/17/2002 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Something that others on this list have mentioned about net energy of ethanol. Didn't notice a emphasis on humanure, methane, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides or other. plastic ides (sp?). From this site: Northwest Iowa Community College (NWICC) Sheldon, Iowa Ethanol - As A Fuel http://www.nwicc.cc.ia.us/etsp.htm Note: linked to Keith's site www.nwicc.cc.ia.us/contacts.htm Excerpts: WHAT'S IN A BUSHEL OF CORN? Each bushel of corn can produce up to 2.5 gallons of ethanol fuel. Only the starch from the corn is used to make ethanol. Most of the substance of the corn kernel remains, leaving the protein and valuable co-products to be used in the production of food for people, livestock feed, and various chemicals. For example, that same bushel of corn (56 lbs.) used in ethanol manufacturing can also produce the following: snip ENERGY One of the most controversial issues relating to ethanol is the question of net energy of ethanol production. According to the Institute for Local Self Reliance research in 1995, the production of ethanol from corn is a positive net energy generator. If corn farmers use state-of-the-art, energy efficient farming techniques, and ethanol plants use state-of-the-art production processes, then the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol and the other co-products is more than twice the energy used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol. This study indicated an industry average net energy gain of 1.38 to 1. The industry best existing production net energy ratio was 2.09 to 1. If farmers and industry were to use all the best technologies and practices the net energy ratio would be 2.51 to 1. The following chart indicates the percentage gains and gains in BTU's. Energy Gain in Making Ethanol from Corn BTU's Percentage Ratio Industry average 30,589 38% 1.38:1 Industry best 62,857 109%2.09:1 State-of-the-art72,413 151%2.51:1 Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energey Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTU's of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTU's of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive. http://www.nwicc.cc.ia.us/Module2.htm Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
steve spence wrote: Gasoline is ~118,000 BTU/gallon Diesel is ~135,000 BTU/gallon Ethanol is ~80,000 BTU/gallon BioDiesel is ~117,000 BTU/gallon this, btw, is very interesting. take the time to go through it all. http://www.tc.gc.ca/envaffairs/climate/doc_converti/Etoh/ETOH-FNL-RPTAug30-1999.htm http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/magrack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm http://www.afdc.nrel.gov/questions.html Thank you Steve! Have not read through entirely but question energy value that does not, I think, consider Internal Combustion (IC) engine compression ratio (CR) and ethanol OH, octane boost. For example (e.g.): http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/magrack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm The energy value of a gallon of ethanol varies from 75,700 BTU 84,000 BTU depending on burning temperature. We will use a figure of 80,000 BTU as this is the energy value of ethanol burning at 25 degrees C. If eye remember correctly 100% ethanol optimally utilizes about 12:1 CR. As the ethanol to gasoline ratio increases ideally so should CR. With increased compression also temperature. I don't have a link at this time but what I understand is ethanol to gasoline relationship begins to balance or equalize efficiency (mpg) when engine/fuel specific CR is observed. The OH provides a measurable increase in complete combustion magnified by CR (ideally) suitable for ethanol octane rating. I believe I read this as well in the The Mother Earth News (TMEN) article about their ethanol pick up truck conversion or Steve or Keith's site on ethanol production. What I've observed with my GeMe is increased mpg with E-10/gasohol more then not. The station pumps reads: gasoline 87 octane, E-10/gasohol 89 octane. Again thank you Steve for the links and will read further. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
They changed the way of measuring octane rating. Ethyl alcohol was 100 under the old system. Probably a higher number under the new system. Optimum compression is just before it detonates. Race cars ran 13.5 to 1 with alcohol. The more you put your foot in something the hotter it gets. If racers ran 13.5 to 1 grandma could probably run a but higher. Fuel efficiency is directly proportional to compression ratio. Kirk -Original Message- From: MH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:34 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again steve spence wrote: Gasoline is ~118,000 BTU/gallon Diesel is ~135,000 BTU/gallon Ethanol is ~80,000 BTU/gallon BioDiesel is ~117,000 BTU/gallon this, btw, is very interesting. take the time to go through it all. http://www.tc.gc.ca/envaffairs/climate/doc_converti/Etoh/ETOH-FNL-RPTAug30-1 999.htm http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/magrack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm http://www.afdc.nrel.gov/questions.html Thank you Steve! Have not read through entirely but question energy value that does not, I think, consider Internal Combustion (IC) engine compression ratio (CR) and ethanol OH, octane boost. For example (e.g.): http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/magrack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm The energy value of a gallon of ethanol varies from 75,700 BTU 84,000 BTU depending on burning temperature. We will use a figure of 80,000 BTU as this is the energy value of ethanol burning at 25 degrees C. If eye remember correctly 100% ethanol optimally utilizes about 12:1 CR. As the ethanol to gasoline ratio increases ideally so should CR. With increased compression also temperature. I don't have a link at this time but what I understand is ethanol to gasoline relationship begins to balance or equalize efficiency (mpg) when engine/fuel specific CR is observed. The OH provides a measurable increase in complete combustion magnified by CR (ideally) suitable for ethanol octane rating. I believe I read this as well in the The Mother Earth News (TMEN) article about their ethanol pick up truck conversion or Steve or Keith's site on ethanol production. What I've observed with my GeMe is increased mpg with E-10/gasohol more then not. The station pumps reads: gasoline 87 octane, E-10/gasohol 89 octane. Again thank you Steve for the links and will read further. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 4/17/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 4/17/2002 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Hello George Good points you make. The company's called Methanex. Here's some background: http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-07-09.html NAFTA used to challenge environmental laws - September 7, 2001 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015c=1s=greider The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century - October 15, 2001 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12233 Trading Democracy - January 15, 2002 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-09237feb06.story?coll=la-headli nes-business Ban on MTBE Induces Suit Using NAFTA Provision - February 6, 2002 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020325-218330,00.html Toxic Trade? A Canadian chemical firm says California's pollution controls violate NAFTA rules - Mar. 25, 2002 (Access ain't free.) Best Keith I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Hi Jesse I'm in Chapter one of Seven Sister, the book about the oil companies. It is riveting! Finally the real history of how far the government is up big oil's smoke stack. Indeed yes. It was a pity leaving out the earlier chapters with what I've been sending the list, it's all a real eye-opener, but I wanted to focus on OPEC. It's such a knee-jerk response to blame everything on OPEC, especially in the US, and that's just not the way it is. A well-spun scapegoat is OPEC, and I think that's making a lot of very iffy to downright dangerous things a lot easier than they should be right now. I'm scanning one more chapter today, the second-last one, and I reckon that'll be it. Best Keith Portfolio: http://www.jesseparris.com/Portfolio_Jesse_Parris/ Jesse Parris | studio53 | graphics / web design | stamford, ct | 203.324.4371 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:32 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Yeah. Cost me $11 but it is worth it. Jess Portfolio: http://www.jesseparris.com/Portfolio_Jesse_Parris/ Jesse Parris | studio53 | graphics / web design | stamford, ct | 203.324.4371 - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:18 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again Hi Jesse I'm in Chapter one of Seven Sister, the book about the oil companies. It is riveting! Finally the real history of how far the government is up big oil's smoke stack. Indeed yes. It was a pity leaving out the earlier chapters with what I've been sending the list,and get with the program... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
What I've learned is US corn (ethanol) and soybean (biodiesel) are net gain fuel producers. The US has a excess crop and few nations buying. US gov't corn/soybean subsidy payments are much lower then US gov't petroleum subsidy payments. US gov't deficits are largely do to importing foreign petroleum. Petroleum is a net loss fuel producer. What I gather is gasoline benefits from ethanol and petro diesel benefits from biodiesel. Theres less cost in producing biofuel then petroleum fuel thus allowing more subsidy funding available for.. Comparing energy value of ethanol to gasoline and diesel to biodiesel the difference seem marginal. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Hello Keith and everybody I read the links you sent, it kinda leaves a man speechless. Wouldn't you think that California could counter sue Methanex for the cost of cleaning up the pollution and for endangering human lives. Couldn't Menthanex be held accountable for what it's chemical did to the enviroment. George Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello George Good points you make. The company's called Methanex. Here's some background: http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-07-09.html NAFTA used to challenge environmental laws - September 7, 2001 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015c=1s=greider The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century - October 15, 2001 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12233 Trading Democracy - January 15, 2002 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-09237feb06.story?coll=la-headli nes-business Ban on MTBE Induces Suit Using NAFTA Provision - February 6, 2002 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020325-218330,00.html Toxic Trade? A Canadian chemical firm says California's pollution controls violate NAFTA rules - Mar. 25, 2002 (Access ain't free.) Best Keith I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Methanex's chemical by itself did nothing to the environment. MTBE does not separate itself from gasoline and selectively leak from the tank. Although MTBE is a health risk, it is not by far the most toxic component of gasoline. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/30/2002 03:45 PM Please respond to biofuel To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com cc: (bcc: Shaen Rooney/APCP/DEQ/MODNR) Subject:RE: RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again Hello Keith and everybody I read the links you sent, it kinda leaves a man speechless. Wouldn't you think that California could counter sue Methanex for the cost of cleaning up the pollution and for endangering human lives. Couldn't Menthanex be held accountable for what it's chemical did to the enviroment. George Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello George Good points you make. The company's called Methanex. Here's some background: http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-07-09.html NAFTA used to challenge environmental laws - September 7, 2001 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015c=1s=greider The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century - October 15, 2001 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12233 Trading Democracy - January 15, 2002 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-09237feb06.story?coll=la-headli nes-business Ban on MTBE Induces Suit Using NAFTA Provision - February 6, 2002 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020325-218330,00.html Toxic Trade? A Canadian chemical firm says California's pollution controls violate NAFTA rules - Mar. 25, 2002 (Access ain't free.) Best Keith I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo!
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Yes, and we in Canada should do the same to Ethyl, eh? They set the precedent that will now serve Methanex. See: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/ethyl.htm Edward Beggs, BES, MSc www.biofuels.ca on 4/30/02 1:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Keith and everybody I read the links you sent, it kinda leaves a man speechless. Wouldn't you think that California could counter sue Methanex for the cost of cleaning up the pollution and for endangering human lives. Couldn't Menthanex be held accountable for what it's chemical did to the enviroment. George Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello George Good points you make. The company's called Methanex. Here's some background: http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-07-09.html NAFTA used to challenge environmental laws - September 7, 2001 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015c=1s=greider The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century - October 15, 2001 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12233 Trading Democracy - January 15, 2002 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-09237feb06.story?coll=la-headli nes-business Ban on MTBE Induces Suit Using NAFTA Provision - February 6, 2002 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020325-218330,00.html Toxic Trade? A Canadian chemical firm says California's pollution controls violate NAFTA rules - Mar. 25, 2002 (Access ain't free.) Best Keith I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Gasoline is ~118,000 BTU/gallon Diesel is ~135,000 BTU/gallon Ethanol is ~80,000 BTU/gallon BioDiesel is ~117,000 BTU/gallon this, btw, is very interesting. take the time to go through it all. http://www.tc.gc.ca/envaffairs/climate/doc_converti/Etoh/ETOH-FNL-RPTAug30-1 999.htm http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/magrack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm http://www.afdc.nrel.gov/questions.html Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again What I've learned is US corn (ethanol) and soybean (biodiesel) are net gain fuel producers. The US has a excess crop and few nations buying. US gov't corn/soybean subsidy payments are much lower then US gov't petroleum subsidy payments. US gov't deficits are largely do to importing foreign petroleum. Petroleum is a net loss fuel producer. What I gather is gasoline benefits from ethanol and petro diesel benefits from biodiesel. Theres less cost in producing biofuel then petroleum fuel thus allowing more subsidy funding available for.. Comparing energy value of ethanol to gasoline and diesel to biodiesel the difference seem marginal. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Yes, and we in Canada should do the same to Ethyl, eh? They set the precedent that will now serve Methanex. See: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/ethyl.htm Edward Beggs, BES, MSc www.biofuels.ca How about Gerber? ... Chiefly because of this false advertising, according to UNICEF, 1.5 million infants die each year because their mothers unwittingly prepare infant formula with contaminated water, causing fatal diarrhea. During the 1970s, a world-wide grass-roots campaign focused attention on this problem, boycotting products made by Nestle, a major manufacturer of infant formula. Partly because of the Nestle boycott, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed and published a Code on Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. The WHO code prohibits words like humanized breastmilk and equivalent to breastmilk. Furthermore, to protect illiterate women from being duped, the WHO code prohibits pictures on labels that idealize the use of bottle feeding. In 1983, Guatemala passed a law and regulations incorporating the WHO code. The goal of the Guatemalan government was to encourage new mothers (1) to breast-feed their infants and (2) to fully understand the threats to their babies of using infant formula as a substitute for breast milk. The Guatemalan law prohibited the use of labels that associated infant formula with a healthy, chubby baby; specifically, the law prohibited pictures of idealized babies on packages of baby food intended for children younger than 2 years. Furthermore, the Guatemalan law required labels to carry a statement that breast-feeding is nutritionally superior. The law also prohibited baby food manufacturers from providing free samples of their products (if a baby starts taking free samples the mother stops lactating, thus converting mother and infant into full-time, paying customers). And finally the law prohibited baby food manufacturers from directly marketing their products to young mothers in the hospital. The regulations went into effect in 1988 and all domestic and foreign manufacturers of baby foods -- with one notable exception -- came into compliance. Infant deaths attributable to bottle feeding declined, and UNICEF began highlighting Guatemala as a model for what works. However, the U.S. baby food manufacturer, Gerber (motto: Babies Are Our Business), objected to Guatemala's new law. Although the Guatemalan Ministry of Health made numerous attempts to negotiate with Gerber, the company reportedly continued to market its infant formula directly to mothers in the hospital, and continued to give free samples to doctors and day care centers. Most importantly Gerber refused to remove its trademark picture of a chubby, smiling baby from its product labels, and it refused to add a phrase saying breast milk was superior. In sum, Gerber thumbed its nose at Guatemalan health authorities, who were trying to protect their most vulnerable citizens, infants, against harm. In November, 1993 -- ten years after Guatemala passed its law, and five years after its regulations went into effect -- Gerber lost its final appeal. A Guatemalan Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of the Ministry of Health and it looked as though even Gerber would have to comply with the Guatemalan law. But Gerber opened a new line of attack on Guatemala, arguing that the Guatemalan law was illegal under international statutes because the law was really an expropriation of Gerber's trademark. This tactic bought Gerber some time while the World Trade Organization was being created. Then in 1995, when the WTO came into being, Gerber dropped its claim about illegal expropriation of its trademark and began threatening to challenge Guatemala before a WTO tribunal. Within a short time, Guatemala realized it was now up against immense power and the Guatemalan government changed its law to allow Gerber to have its way. Gerber won without ever having to formally request that the U.S. take its case to the WTO. Just a few letters containing the WTO threat were sufficient. [more] http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=1646bulletin_ID=48 Rachel's Weekly #677 - Corporate Rights vs. Human Need, November 18, 1999 etc etc etc - not NAFTA indeed, NAFTA's big brother (everybody's!!), but so what if you die of cancer or Parkinson's disease (MMT) or dishonest advertising? You're dead anyway. Keith on 4/30/02 1:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Keith and everybody I read the links you sent, it kinda leaves a man speechless. Wouldn't you think that California could counter sue Methanex for the cost of cleaning up the pollution and for endangering human lives. Couldn't Menthanex be held accountable for what it's chemical did to the enviroment. George Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello George Good points you make. The company's called Methanex. Here's some background:
RE: Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Mr Beggs I read your link and noticed that it was dated April 1997. In the article it said that the lawyers for Ethyl thought the lawsuit would be over by year's end. Is this lawsuit over yet and if so, how did this end? George Neoteric Biofuels Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, and we in Canada should do the same to Ethyl, eh? They set the precedent that will now serve Methanex. See: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/ethyl.htm Edward Beggs, BES, MSc www.biofuels.ca on 4/30/02 1:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Keith and everybody I read the links you sent, it kinda leaves a man speechless. Wouldn't you think that California could counter sue Methanex for the cost of cleaning up the pollution and for endangering human lives. Couldn't Menthanex be held accountable for what it's chemical did to the enviroment. George Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello George Good points you make. The company's called Methanex. Here's some background: http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-07-09.html NAFTA used to challenge environmental laws - September 7, 2001 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015c=1s=greider The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century - October 15, 2001 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12233 Trading Democracy - January 15, 2002 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-09237feb06.story?coll=la-headli nes-business Ban on MTBE Induces Suit Using NAFTA Provision - February 6, 2002 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020325-218330,00.html Toxic Trade? A Canadian chemical firm says California's pollution controls violate NAFTA rules - Mar. 25, 2002 (Access ain't free.) Best Keith I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups
[biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Dayton thinks America is ready for a biofuels boom, since the bill also contains his idea for a new biodiesel tax credit of up to $1 a gallon. The alternative is to do nothing, to make no change, Dayton said. http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/3131380.htm or simply tax imported crude, I gotta agree with Todd an his pray for acid drought,$3.50 fuel, I'll take 2.00 fuel, it would no doubt do more for biofuels faster than any legislative attempt to increase production, its all in the consumers pocketbook WASHINGTON ÷ Pro-ethanol forces have won every battle in Congress this spring, but with each victory, opposition to the corn-based fuel grows more fierce. Lawmakers from mega-states like California, New York and Texas are furious that Midwestern legislators are forcing them to use a fuel their states don't produce, don't like and don't want. First the government subsidizes ethanol, and then mandates that everybody use it, fumed Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., during a debate Tuesday. That sounds more like something out of the Soviet Union than out of the United States of America. Today, the U.S. Senate is expected to pass an energy bill that enthusiastically promotes ethanol. The bill requires tripling the amount of ethanol used nationally and includes Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton's proposal requiring most federal vehicles to use ethanol blends. Like Midwestern senators from both parties, Dayton, a Democrat, thinks it's good policy to promote homegrown energy, so the money will stay in the country rather than going abroad · (and will) help the environment and boost the prices for corn. Minnesota is the nation's fourth-largest ethanol-producing state, so the bill would be a bonanza for the state's booming ethanol industry. Minnesota's second senator, Paul Wellstone, also a Democrat, called it a win-win-win: for the environment, for Minnesota farmers and for energy independence. But outside the Corn Belt, the debate has critics complaining anew about the tax breaks, import restrictions and federal mandates that prop up the industry. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted that ethanol already gets a 53- cent-a-gallon tax break and enjoys a protective tariff to block foreign imports. She calls it greedy to add new requirements to triple ethanol use in 10 years and push ethanol-only policies to clean the air. This is a massive transfer of wealth out of some states, into other states, she complained. Ninety-eight percent of ethanol comes from the Midwest. Feinstein and other critics couldn't persuade the U.S. Senate, where each state has two senators. But the odds are different in the U.S. House, where California has 52 votes vs. Minnesota's eight and Iowa's five. When the energy bill next goes to a House-Senate conference committee, how will Midwesterners prevail? We'll have to use our wonderful power of persuasion, said Dayton. Eleven percent of the gasoline consumed in the entire United States is consumed in California, he said. If anyone has a stake in shifting reliance from large imported foreign oil ÷ and therefore gasoline ÷ to U.S.-based alternatives, it would be California. They are even more vulnerable to supply disruption and price spikes than anyone else in the country. The Midwest will get help from President Bush. On Wednesday, he toured a South Dakota ethanol plant and said the fuel is good for our air, it's good for our economy and it's good for our national security. During the Senate debate, Schumer warned that the ethanol provisions would send gasoline prices soaring, prompting an outcry in the nation and causing senators to ask sheepishly, How the heck did this thing pass? Not so, Dayton said. He cited Minnesota's ethanol experience, where dire predictions of high prices and shortages did not occur. Dayton thinks America is ready for a biofuels boom, since the bill also contains his idea for a new biodiesel tax credit of up to $1 a gallon. The alternative is to do nothing, to make no change, Dayton said Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
Arguments against US corn and soybean biofuel seems outlandish IF it boosts bushel price due to increased demand thus lowering US gov't subsidize payments helping to balance US deficits and I would think the savings might provide synergy for invested interest in further development of the next big oil bonanza. Maybe a gov't.inc revenue restructuring without further citizen tax dollar giveaways and perhaps a boost for business/job development. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again
I'm in Chapter one of Seven Sister, the book about the oil companies. It is riveting! Finally the real history of how far the government is up big oil's smoke stack. Portfolio: http://www.jesseparris.com/Portfolio_Jesse_Parris/ Jesse Parris | studio53 | graphics / web design | stamford, ct | 203.324.4371 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:32 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Is it now time to talk to your congressman?? again I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in California because the state will not be able to ship in enought ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. George Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these states Do they not have ports to import cheap corn to make ETOH? Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support building a pipeline down from Alaska. I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying for them for a while and its only getting better. Come on Coasties put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
