1
2
3
4
5
Curmudgeon wrote:Shoot, no need to apologize. I know what I've got. There were plenty of my Mercedes customers who hitched a ride home in that plebian vehicle.
Let me clarify.. I'm not a car snob.. I like honest, simple, functional, cars! That does not mean I'm offended by technical improvements or honestly superior cars. I accept that a Ford Model A is a better car than the Ford Model T IF The Jaguar is broken I'll happily drive the Ford Model A
mguar wrote:Why then do people pay $100,000 and more for used XK-E"s and XK120's? I see some T series MG selling for $30,000+
Because they have big egos and little tiny peckers?
Ouch. 
Actually, I think it's because people are buying their youth back. OTOH, those Barrett-Jackson types are waving their gigantic financial penii at the proletariat.
Barrett-Jackson is the equivalent of a parakeet gland on a stick.
mguar wrote:Strizzo wrote:Widely known.......interesting.. So if I say that all right handed people are widely known to be poor drivers that makes it true? . Please provide some documentation as to your claim that more diesel is used creating ethanol that ethanol produced.. Brazil manages to make far more fuel than it every imports in oil.. Why can they and we Americans can't? Which farms? How fertile are the fields, what sort of yield are we discussing? What sort of equipment is used? How far are the fields from the ethanol plant? What sort of fuel; mileage do the delivery trucks make? How is the ethanol delivered to the refinery? Train, Pipeline? Truck? What sort of planting practices are used til, no-til?mguar, who are you? i haven't seen you post in any other threads and it seems that any time the ethanol topic comes up someone pops in out of nowhere to defend E10 with poor logic.
like has been said, while ethanol blended fuel has been around for a long time, it has only recently become required. your example of how ethanol reduces crude oil use is flawed, because it has been shown that the amount of crude oil replaced by ethanol is outweighed by the amount of diesel used in the growing process. you can say the amish don't use diesel, but they don't produce the majority of the corn so its rediculous to bring it up.
it is also widely known that ethanol will eat anything not nylon or stainless in the fuel system, and even cars that are "approved" for e10 fuel have had issues that can be traced back to E10 fuel.
i also noticed that a lot of people seem to be confusing the corn ethanol subsidy and price protection being eliminated with the end of mandated ethanol blending. they are two separate things. what this will do is allow the sugar cane and switchgrass based ethanol from south america to more easily compete with US-grown corn-based ethanol.
How many of those farmers use used cooking oil to either farm or haul their delivery to the plant?
as for your first real question, there's this NYT article talking about which fuels actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which discusses how silly the corn subsidy and cane-based ethanol tax was: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/corn-ethanol-biofuel-or-biofraud/
and then there is this article, which discusses the economic cost of corn-based ethanol: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-true-cost-of-corn-ethanol/
and also this article which talks about the energy costs, as well as the indirect land use changes and also touches on increased food costs due to biofuel production: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/an-inconvenient-truth-biofuels-have-a-...
in order to grow corn, farmers have to run tractors, which usually run on diesel, then they run harvesters, also on diesel, then it is transported at least some distance by truck and then possibly by train which both will run on diesel. then there is the energy required to actually make the ethanol, which uses electricity produced by usually either coal or natural gas, which will produce emissions that must also be counted. then there is the fact that depending on the car, there will be a reduction in mileage due to the addition of the lower energy density ethanol to the fuel.
as to the rest of your questions, obviously it will depend, but i seriously doubt that anyone who's living is dependent on a piece of equipment working reliably is going to run WVO in that equipment. you can just look to the people on this board that have had issues with fuel quality, gelling, mechanical part wear and other issues to see that its a bit more complicated than "just switch everything to X fuel"
spitfirebill wrote:mguar wrote:Why then do people pay $100,000 and more for used XK-E"s and XK120's? I see some T series MG selling for $30,000+
Because they have big egos and little tiny peckers?
I suspect it's more than that. Big ego's and small peckers need flashy new cars, not cars that require an explanation. An old car demands an explanation even if it's it nice condition.. .. If you are in a position where you have that sort of discretionary income there is a great appeal with those cars..
Until you've driven those particular cars you won't appreciate what they have to offer.. However once you've in a position to appreciate one it will leave you with a great hunger to do it again..
There are few enough of them when they were new.. Add abuse, neglect, and rarity to demand and that's why they command such a premium.
Knurled wrote:Barrett-Jackson is the equivalent of a parakeet gland on a stick.
That may be but there are far more collector cars sold privately than at Barrett Jackson.. Sometimes private sales exceed prices paid at Barrett Jackson. In fact real premium prices paid seldom are done in public..
Strizzo wrote:In the End,, Brazil went from being a debtor nation to a very prosperous nation simply by switching to ethanol..mguar wrote:Strizzo wrote:Widely known.......interesting.. So if I say that all right handed people are widely known to be poor drivers that makes it true? . Please provide some documentation as to your claim that more diesel is used creating ethanol that ethanol produced.. Brazil manages to make far more fuel than it every imports in oil.. Why can they and we Americans can't? Which farms? How fertile are the fields, what sort of yield are we discussing? What sort of equipment is used? How far are the fields from the ethanol plant? What sort of fuel; mileage do the delivery trucks make? How is the ethanol delivered to the refinery? Train, Pipeline? Truck? What sort of planting practices are used til, no-til?mguar, who are you? i haven't seen you post in any other threads and it seems that any time the ethanol topic comes up someone pops in out of nowhere to defend E10 with poor logic.
like has been said, while ethanol blended fuel has been around for a long time, it has only recently become required. your example of how ethanol reduces crude oil use is flawed, because it has been shown that the amount of crude oil replaced by ethanol is outweighed by the amount of diesel used in the growing process. you can say the amish don't use diesel, but they don't produce the majority of the corn so its rediculous to bring it up.
it is also widely known that ethanol will eat anything not nylon or stainless in the fuel system, and even cars that are "approved" for e10 fuel have had issues that can be traced back to E10 fuel.
i also noticed that a lot of people seem to be confusing the corn ethanol subsidy and price protection being eliminated with the end of mandated ethanol blending. they are two separate things. what this will do is allow the sugar cane and switchgrass based ethanol from south america to more easily compete with US-grown corn-based ethanol.
How many of those farmers use used cooking oil to either farm or haul their delivery to the plant?as for your first real question, there's this NYT article talking about which fuels actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which discusses how silly the corn subsidy and cane-based ethanol tax was: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/corn-ethanol-biofuel-or-biofraud/
and then there is this article, which discusses the economic cost of corn-based ethanol: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-true-cost-of-corn-ethanol/
and also this article which talks about the energy costs, as well as the indirect land use changes and also touches on increased food costs due to biofuel production: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/an-inconvenient-truth-biofuels-have-a-...
in order to grow corn, farmers have to run tractors, which usually run on diesel, then they run harvesters, also on diesel, then it is transported at least some distance by truck and then possibly by train which both will run on diesel. then there is the energy required to actually make the ethanol, which uses electricity produced by usually either coal or natural gas, which will produce emissions that must also be counted. then there is the fact that depending on the car, there will be a reduction in mileage due to the addition of the lower energy density ethanol to the fuel.
as to the rest of your questions, obviously it will depend, but i seriously doubt that anyone who's living is dependent on a piece of equipment working reliably is going to run WVO in that equipment. you can just look to the people on this board that have had issues with fuel quality, gelling, mechanical part wear and other issues to see that its a bit more complicated than "just switch everything to X fuel"
Clearly you don't know farmers.. The source for information they use isn't the New York Times..
More than a few farmers use cooking oil and you'd know that if you drove through corn country at planting or harvest time..
Here in corn Belt country there are more ethanol plants than outlets for the New York Times.. While green is a common tractor color it by no means is the only color..
Anybody who pretends to know what farmers spend and sell their crops for is looking at some pretty wide brush strokes.
I know a few counties where ethanol plants were put up by local farmers and supplied by local farmers with profits going to local farmers..
If you claim you have access to their tax returns somehow I'd like to see your proof of that..
In reply to mguar:
I have access to farmer's tax returns. I've done hundreds of them. What do you want to know other than the vast majority of them lose money?
Man, it's easy to lose money on paper.
Brazil's gross national debt at the moment is ~60% of GDP. that sounds bad until it's noted that the US is at ~101% and Japan is at an eye popping ~230%. Brazil's debt is projected to drop and the US/Japan's both to rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_gross_government_debt
I didn't read all the preceding pages, but you're talking about Brazil vs the US?
Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane, which is a far more efficient ethanol crop than corn. You can't compare the two, except to prove that they are vastly different.
ddavidv wrote:OK so Corn may not be the best crop for ethanol.. However it's like everything when it comes to government.. Nobody is a dictator. so Compromise is needed.. I'll bet you can figure out why corn was selected..I didn't read all the preceding pages, but you're talking about Brazil vs the US?
Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane, which is a far more efficient ethanol crop than corn. You can't compare the two, except to prove that they are vastly different.
Curmudgeon wrote:Man, it's easy to lose money on paper.
Brazil's gross national debt at the moment is ~60% of GDP. that sounds bad until it's noted that the US is at ~101% and Japan is at an eye popping ~230%. Brazil's debt is projected to drop and the US/Japan's both to rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_gross_government_debt
It wasn't all that long ago when Brazil was at 230% debt to GDP or something thereabouts. Back when they were dependent on imported oil..
Oh by the way in case you think 100% debt to GDP ratio is bad, what's yours? Take your mortgage and any credit card debt etc.. and compare it to your annual income..
An interesting tid bit about our National debt..
It was lowest under which president?
That's right Carter 31%
Reagan kicked it up to 78%
It stayed at 78% under Bush (sr)
Clinton brought it down to 54%
Bush (jr) raised it to 100%
So much for Tax and spend Democrats.
