I must echo DLC in his answer to:<br><br>Sadly, Democrat unity consists entirely of negativity, obstructionism, and hissy fits over any positive news about the state of the union, without having any sort of constructive proposals of their own to offer.<br><br>How does this differ from any of the rhetoric of a minority party?<br><br>And while we are at it, please define for me what a conservative is these days, I've lost track. And what about a liberal? I wouldn't count myself in either camp except out the necessity to oppose the righteousness and mendacity that has gripped this country. <br>Do you support "right to life" in your conservative advocacy? Then what about the Iraqi intervention? Harping on about the right to life while innocent Iraqis with an equal right to life are killed every day is the worst kind of righteous hypocrisy. We knew we were going to kill a lot of Iraqis in the course of this experiment and we did it anyway... Were their lives worth it? Is it worth the human cost. Then why aren't the embyros? If the embryos were Iraqi embryos would that be okay? I can see someone defending embryo research. This can be rational, but not when someone tries to defend what we did and are doing in Iraq in the same breath.<br><br>

To get the same energy out of Ethanol as Gasoline you need to burn more of it. Will that not make more CO2?<br><br><br><br>We all do what we do for the same reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time.

excellent question, but I don't think so<br><br> example (simplified) <br>Octane = C8H18<br>burn it and you get 8 CO2<br>C8H18 + 12.5 O2 -----> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O<br><br>to get close to that energy, you need 4 ethanol - C2H5OH<br><br>4 C2H5OH + 12 O2 -----> 8 CO2 + 12 H2O<br><br>you still get the same 8 CO2.<br>the only missing part is the BTU you get from EtOH... but if you balance the carbons (4X), it can't be that much less than octane... AND from what I read it is supposed to make the octane burn better... the gas mix is only 10% EtOH... so the overall composition isn't drastically changed.<br>the other thing is ethanol is renewable- oil is not.<br><br>David (OFI)<br>

Well, now, there is so much to answer in this thread that in my present foul mood I'll try to restrain myself to a few salient points. (Recent athroscopy went badly.)<br><br>Pigeonholing a liberal or conservative by the gamut of their beliefs is of course futile, except for the fringe elements to whom the politics is more of a religion. As has been noted many times, many of the most ardent communists becamee the most rabid fascists in Hitler's Germany. If you haven't done so, I would strongly recommend Eric Hoffer's book of about 60 years ago, "The True Believer".<br><br>The original thrust of this thread was that Bush doesn't have universal backing of all his programs from his own party, which is obvious. And in a democracy, it's also a good thing.<br><br>Prolife v. Prochoice has become such a totally emotional issue that it's hardly even worth the acrimonious pissing contests that always ensue whenever the subject is brought up. (My own views are totally irrelevant. There actually are many conservatives who are prochoice, proflouridation, believe in evolution, and don't go to church. As a further aside, I would venture that I'm probably the only member of this board who has actually performed abortions.)<br><br>Finally, a good summary of the EtOH boondoggle is from Audubon Magazine here. I find it highly amusing also that for all it's alleged benefits, current legislation before congress prohibits the import of foreign ethanol from countries that can supply it at lower cost to the US consumer.<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>

One huge downfall to alcohol is that it's a drying agent and would ruin the seals in an engine, which in turn made the engine burn oil and hence pollute a lot more. Not to mention it pretty much required you to replace the engine, as that would cost less in labor than tearing it apart and rebuilding.<br><br>I think that issue has been worked out for awhile now and all cars can run on up to 20% ethanol, but the stigma looms and those that had an engine ruined won't likely be happy putting it in their tank.<br><br>Not sure about the numbers in this article, but it says this about ethanol:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>David Pimentel, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University and one of the foremost critics of ethanol, has conducted numerous cost analyses on ethanol production. He's made a name for himself mostly by driving the ethanol industry raving mad. From its very beginnings, when hoe enters soil, ethanol production has not changed much since the nineteenth century. Pimentel found that one acre of U.S. corn field yields about 7,110 pounds of corn, which in turn produces 328 gallons of ethanol. Setting aside the environmental implications (which are substantial), the financial costs already begin to mount. To plant, grow, and harvest the corn takes about 140 gallons of fossil fuel and costs about $347 per acre. According to Pimentel's analysis, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock alone costs $0.69 per gallon of ethanol.<br><br>More damning, however, is that converting corn to ethanol requires about 99,119 BTUs to make one gallon, which has 77,000 BTUs of available energy. So about 29 percent more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than is stored in that gallon in the first place. "That helps explain why fossil fuels (not ethanol) are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies that artificially lower the price." All told, a gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce, compared to $0.63 for a gallon of gasoline.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Link<br><br>**edit - oooo wait here's a PDF of his research on the subject ->> Click me!!<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SgtBaxter on 06/17/05 06:22 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

Touche, Walrus. I really wasn't trying to pigeonhole you, which is why I asked you what you thought a conservative was, if indeed you have a conservative bent. I am still curious.<br><br>I am from Iowa originally where Ethanol is huge issue, as Iowa is the number one corn grower in the nation. I don't know the science, but from my understanding it was never what it was cracked up to be, and in some ways is worse than regular gasoline. The only thing keeping it alive is the corn farmer vote.<br><br><br>

I have to add to my previous post that I guess what gets me is that people want to talk about anything but Iraq, which is why I brought it up (and have brought it up before). People will go on about much smaller problems like Ethanol or Terry Schiavo (or Michael Jackson!) but they don't want to touch Iraq directly. I am talking about people in general, not just the crowd in the macminute forum. People will say that Iraq is all talked out and there is nothing we can do. Well, Ethanol and Terry Schiavo are all talked out too aren't they? And what could anyone do about Ethanol or Terry Schiavo either? If the reason that people don't want to talk about it is because it has become obvious to so many what a disaster it is, I would be glad to hear this. I live outside the US and only get to hear general opinions from people back home when I come home once in a blue moon<br><br>

Well Sarge - I know a little but I'm no expert on ethanol... maybe it is all hype for the corn growers and ADM. I haven't researched it, so I'll take all this into consideration.<br><br>Thanks !<br><br><br>David (OFI)<br>

Who says that those opposed to Bush have to be either right or left? Bush is a disillusioned man but a very rich one.. What was ever his agenda? It certainly wasn't for the good of Americans or the rest of us either.. it was for GWB. Not dissimilar to Saddam nor Hitler, in fact not even dissimilar to Osama Bin Laden.<br><br>

I certainly take no offense from your remarks. I just feel that trying to fit someone into a little labeled box stamped "Liberal" or "Conservative" based on short list of yes/no questions is demeaning to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and who understands that there are rarely simple answers to compex questions.<br><br>I am conservative on some issues, liberal on some, and don't-give-a-sh*t on many.<br><br>.......<br><br>Now, did I hear right? - that the Indy 500 is going to run on ethanol next year instead of methanol?<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>