Dean M

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

You have clearly changed your position based on my comments - you were initially attacking electric vehicles because you believed they were associated with renewable sources and because the electricity might require more btu's than running on gas, but when I essentially repeated the same argument 4 times that we could generate electricity with domestic sources such as coal and it would be a major benefit regardless of cost you finally realized what I was saying and took that position as your own. Now I'm done, you can call me a moron and get in the last word

On Nov 24 11:21 PM Dean M wrote:

> The name calling just proves you lack the intellect to debate me.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

The name calling just proves you lack the intellect to debate me. You claimed electric vehicles weren't viable and I disagreed based on criteria that you have yet to make an intelligent rebuttal to after 4 rambling insult laden responses.


On Nov 24 11:16 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Dean... I wasn't the one attacking my posts in response to why not
> only ethanol, but electric vehicles (brought up by someone else,
> not me) aren't the answer to the issue at hand, you were. I understood
> the context of what was being debated, you didn't. Of course you're
> also too proud to admit that YOU weren't the one listening... or
> did you forget posting this:
>
> I would think a charging station would be a hell of alot cheaper

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Jim Please Listen: I don't care if we use more energy as long as it is from domestic sources. We have the resources, lets use them now. And you keep saying electricity uses oil and gas, actually oil is just a tiny, almost insignificant sliver of our power generation, coal-gas-nukes are the big 3


On Nov 24 10:30 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> First of all, the comments about wind and solar powered vehicles
> were sarcasm. If you're unfamiliar with the concept look up the
> word in the dictionary (or have someone do it for you). If you really
> think I believe that you should put a windmill on the back of your
> car then you're a bigger moron then your posts show.
>
> Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we continue to
> use a combustion engine or an electric car... it has to do with fixing
> the primary source of the solution being offered; ELECTRICITY.
>
>
> If you really believe in using coal or natural gas to help generate
> electricity then in theory you should be on my side. You can't save
> oil and gasoline by using electricity until you fix the problem that
> using more electricity uses more oil and gasoline. This isn't a
> hard concept to grasp! To use an old phrase that predates combustion
> engine vehicles, worrying about electric cars before the delivery
> method of electricity is fixed is "putting the cart before the horse".
>
>
> I'll say it again... if you want to argue with me then get off your
> soap box and explain to me how using more oil and gas will save us
> oil and gas. Until you can do this you're just showing your lack
> of understanding of the discussion and your overall ignorance.<br/>

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

No I hear your point and I disagree, I would be willing to burn 20% more fuel to generate the same miles traveled, I don't care. The benefit would outweigh the costs of being reliant on foreign sources. Even though I doubt that what you say is really true because as a previous post pointed out, internal combustion engines are still only 35% efficient as opposed to over 90% for electric motors. And you completely miss the point if you think that electric cars can only operate on wind or solar generated electricity.


On Nov 24 09:54 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Wow, you really miss the point. This isn't in response to the cost
> of anything, but to the best path to becoming energy independent
> of oil. Whether you believe it's because we're running out or don't
> want to support the Middle East really doesn't matter. The issue
> in this article (and the following discussion) is how to accomplish
> this by using alternative fuel sources for vehicles. My point is
> that electricity shouldn't be offered as a solution until the electricity
> can be delivered without consuming even more oil and gasoline then
> the so called "solution" will save us. The issue of price isn't
> a factor here (unless you want to count the increase in the price
> of electricity due to the increased demand).
>
> Either take a reading comprehension course or keep your soap box
> opinions to yourself, they aren't solutions to anything being discussed
> here.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Maybe you should have read my post before you started frothing at the mouth. I am calling for electric cars powered by coal and gas generated electricity. That is a viable alternative for energy independence. The real cost is much cheaper than oil if you factor in things like our damaging trade deficit and the wars in Iraq. I know wind and solar is not capable of delivering that much power and I don't think my original post said anything about that.


On Nov 24 06:05 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Thanks for making my point. Cars running on electricity is not going
> to make us energy independent; it's not the answer to our fuel problem.
> For almost 40 years there's been an industry trying to push "alternative"
> fuels on the public, all the while wasting even more energy trying
> to find a method that works. It's not going to happen. Electric
> is a viable option but not until you find a delivery source that
> doesn't use more oil and gas then it saves. Get your head out of
> your @ss... your saviors have had 4 decades to come up with an answer
> and they can't do it. Admit that the perpetual motion machine doesn't
> exist... it runs on oil... and stop wasting even more of what you're
> worried about running out by running in circles.
>
> Whether you like it or not oil is an issue until this is solved,
> and windmills and electric cars are not the answer... they're just
> providing the excuse to "keep things as they are a little while longer
> until we find the answer". Thank your viewpoint for keeping us in
> battles for crude oil.
>
> Unless you're willing to move to nuclear power to deliver your electricity
> then it's all a fool's game, and you and the other fools will keep
> wasting everyone's time, not to mention their energy.
>
> BTW, I live just a few miles from Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania
> and have no issue with nuclear power.
>
> On Nov 24 04:51 PM Dean M wrote:

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Operative term: "some type" of fossil fuel. Do you want to use abundant US fossil fuels such as coal and gas delivered through the power grid or Al Qaida funding gasoline. What about the sunken cost of keeping the oil flowing in the middle east via US military support. If we taxpayers could get back our trillion dollars from Iraq I'm sure that would offset the cost differential between gas and electric powered vehicles if there really is one.


On Nov 24 04:08 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Handsel... everything you discussed here requires some type of fossil
> fuel to generate the electricity to supply the power and for the
> manufacturing of the batteries, so far it's been shown that you use
> more energy than you save going down this road. Unfortunately there
> has been an entire industry based upon this flawed theory for decades
> now and there's a sunken cost effect involved... no one is willing
> to let it go and admit it's a waste of time.
>
> Unless you're willing to move toward nuclear power (which would take
> decades even if we started today) or turn your vehicle into a huge
> sailboat with a windmill strapped to the back of it you're not saving
> any energy.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

I would think a charging station would be a hell of alot cheaper than a gas station to build and maintain. I bet if electric car batteries come up to snuff, the infrastructure will follow in a hurry. Ethanol E85 lacks acceptance because the whole idea is ridiculous.


On Nov 24 08:28 AM Decoy wrote:

> Ethanol plus any other energy source that needs special filling facilities
> such as e85 pumps, hydrogen pumps, hydrogen pumps,special electric
> hook ups will have a hard time being accepted. Example,many cars
> on the east and west coast can &amp; would use e85 but there are
> few if any pumps that can deliver it. The same will happen with plug
> in electrics unless someone builds out the charging stations throughout
> the nation.

My Thoughts on Oil

70% of our GDP is consumer spending, I wouldn't call that efficient.


On Jun 02 10:31 AM Righteous Dude wrote:

> Your first sentence is highly misleading. The US does use around
> 25% of the world's oil, but we also create 30% of the world's GDP.
> We are more efficient than most countries
>
> The second sentence makes no sense at all. Just as example: Japan
> is 100% dependent on oil imports, whereas the US is "only" 65% dependent.
>
>
> Why is oil going up? We have seen what enviro-terrorists have done
> to the energy policy in Europe. In an absurd attempt to fight higher
> temperatures that may or may not be caused by oil companies, Europe
> emphasized natural gas without bothering to figure out where they
> would get said gas... Now all of Europe must pay whatever price Vladimir
> Putin wants to avoid freezing to death.
>
> Obama is now indebted to similar extremists here in the US for his
> election. While alternative energy sources are probably a good idea
> in the long run -- they cannot make a dent in the next 4 years (or
> even 8). It took Brazil over two decades to switch to ethanol, and
> that was under a military dictatorship and with a lot less infrastructure
> to convert.
>
> What stupid energy idea will the crazies force down America's throat
> through their puppet Obama? Its anyone's guess, but one sure thing
> is that it will cost American consumers dearly