Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Yeah. It is. But if you really believe it... are you volunteering to do your part first?

Oh, one of those inconvenient, underreported stories on this topic is that the combination of slightly elevated CO2 levels and ice melting (warming) has resulted in a reversal of desertification. Areas of the world formerly arid are now becoming green. That ice that Gore mistakenly thought would raise the sea level and flood NYC instead became part of the hydraulic cycle. Who would have figured (other than people who apply CO2 and water to greenhouses to make plants grow faster and produce more) that increasing CO2 and warmth would be GOOD for plants... and therefore humans and animals?

Michael Crichton pointed out several inconvenient truths like that when talking about his book State of Fear.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I think you are closer to it than me.

Don't worry about it, at the rate my health is deteriorating I won't be part of your problem for much longer.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Princess, I already admitted to being an ass.

I do think of all the things in the world, griping about gas prices should be low on totem pole.

We all know the drill (get it).

*We know infrastructure isnt there @Glitch
*we know technology is there. Toyota has the patent.
*Edison made a bulb that lasted over 100 years. What good would it do to sell a product that lastednan entire lifetime?
*i dont buy the weak electrical grid wont support it stance. When horse and buggy was watching a Model T go by at 15 mph, I'm sure people thought 'how will we ever support a fleet of these?'
*Large corporations of whom it is beneficial will help subsidize building out of electric charging stations. That should make you red boys happy, private business doing its thing.
*Battery's can be recycled.
*If America can take lead on this, it will help us to reduce our reliance on Middle East & South American countries. You talk about Russian influence?!

Since you are for imposing this on me like the rest of your authoritarian nanny state buddies, then are you gonna be a bud and buy me one of those fancy shmancy unico...I mean long distance capable, and economical electric cars?

No...you just don't give a **** if it makes my life suck.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Hey whoever...do you think I literally meant that? I was trying to make an extremely sarcastic point. You guys are kind of getting power mad. I don't want anybody to hurt themself...surely to God everybody knows that.

SMH...c'mon man..


Telling people that they shouldn't have the right to reproduce is insane. I think people should responsibly procreate, and I did.

 

[Rishvol]

It's like you guys didn't even watch the SB. According to BMW Zues will come down from the clouds and five everyone unlimited energy. It's not rocket surgery people

 

[SSVol]

I have a unique recent history. I work in the energy/fuels sector now and previously worked in large scale metal recycling.

These types of batteries cannot be cost effectively recycled. We tried.

The infrastructure absolutely is NOT there. We would have to more than double our transmission capacity to handle the proposed switch. And that has to be done when the world's known reserves of copper are almost gone. The alternative is using aluminum... which reduces effectiveness.

Toyota is one company that appears to see the Hydrogen fuel cell as the answer. That idea answers both the infrastructure and driving range problems. Essentially an electric car with an on board reactor providing electricity. UCF has a working prototype that uses ethanol as its fuel.

The relationship between the US and the Middle East for oil is one of cost and convenience- not necessity. We have more than enough oil to supply our own needs for centuries. Unfortunately the US does not have large reserves of the minerals needed for this type of battery. China does. Their hints at replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency will quickly become a DEMAND once they have cornered the market on transportation batteries.

This is a complex issue. I believe we need to work away from fossil fuels for health, environmental, security, and future economic reasons. But plug in EV's are not a solution. They are a romanticized dream being shoved down the throats of everyone.

I do think there can be a middle ground though. Take light bulbs as an example. Gov passed laws limiting incandescent bulbs, forcing us to use CFL's that were terrible in multiple ways, but in doing so forced money into the industry making it viable to develop LEDs. Today LEDs are reasonably priced and vastly superior to either incandescent or CFL. That ended up being a win, and while I griped constantly then, I'm very happy now. Plug-in EVs may well be the stepping stone to something much better, but without the push we may never get there. Too much gov is bad. Too little can be bad too. Balance is good.

 

[sjt18]

I do think there can be a middle ground though. Take light bulbs as an example. Gov passed laws limiting incandescent bulbs, forcing us to use CFL's that were terrible in multiple ways, but in doing so forced money into the industry making it viable to develop LEDs. Today LEDs are reasonably priced and vastly superior to either incandescent or CFL. That ended up being a win, and while I griped constantly then, I'm very happy now. Plug-in EVs may well be the stepping stone to something much better, but without the push we may never get there. Too much gov is bad. Too little can be bad too. Balance is good.

That is built on the assumption that LED's and other better bulbs would not have happened without government force. In truth, those types of innovations and inventions fail to happen because government regulation stands in the way.

The lightbulb wasn't invented because government outlawed candles, lamps, or even whale blubber for oil. It was invented because people could invent things and bring them to market with almost no government restrictions.... or taxes.

On the other side... they didn't get grants or other forms of "corporate welfare" either.

We are nowhere near "balanced" on government. We have way, WAY too much interference. Government is no longer a referee but actively chooses winners and losers.

If you want to "push" plug in EV's then by all means waste YOUR money. But don't waste mine either through forced purchase of vehicles, forced transition, or corporate welfare for research or infrastructure. If it is economically viable... my money for things isn't needed. Let the people vote with THEIR OWN MONEY.

The bigger problem with your statement is that the "something better" is already out there and being smothered by politics. Biofuels can be expanded. One area in particular is biomass from which we can derive renewable Nat Gas.

Plug in EV's are an idea with lots of emotion and romance but NO economic merit and questionable environmental merit.

 

[bignewt]

Hey whoever...do you think I literally meant that? I was trying to make an extremely sarcastic point. You guys are kind of getting power mad. I don't want anybody to hurt themself...surely to God everybody knows that.

SMH...c'mon man..


Telling people that they shouldn't have the right to reproduce is insane. I think people should responsibly procreate, and I did.

few do. maybe you should stop bitching about the horrible world you live in for 90 minutes and watch Idiocracy.

 

[SSVol]

That is built on the assumption that LED's and other better bulbs would not have happened without government force. In truth, those types of innovations and inventions fail to happen because government regulation stands in the way.

The lightbulb wasn't invented because government outlawed candles, lamps, or even whale blubber for oil. It was invented because people could invent things and bring them to market with almost no government restrictions.... or taxes.

On the other side... they didn't get grants or other forms of "corporate welfare" either.

We are nowhere near "balanced" on government. We have way, WAY too much interference. Government is no longer a referee but actively chooses winners and losers.

If you want to "push" plug in EV's then by all means waste YOUR money. But don't waste mine either through forced purchase of vehicles, forced transition, or corporate welfare for research or infrastructure. If it is economically viable... my money for things isn't needed. Let the people vote with THEIR OWN MONEY.

The bigger problem with your statement is that the "something better" is already out there and being smothered by politics. Biofuels can be expanded. One area in particular is biomass from which we can derive renewable Nat Gas.

Plug in EV's are an idea with lots of emotion and romance but NO economic merit and questionable environmental merit.

I'm conservative and I agree we have too much government. I am also old enough to move past the belief that people always make the best decisions for themselves. Many don't. There are far more dumb people doing dumb things than any of us want to accept. Again, balance. I doubt any two people will agree on what that means precisely, but at 57 I am ok with more of it than I was at 27.

But to your point, yes, government is screwing this up. That Tesla sells cars to rich people who can afford them at full price, while both are subsidized by the gov, is simply criminal.

 

[Jackcrevol]

Since you are for imposing this on me like the rest of your authoritarian nanny state buddies, then are you gonna be a bud and buy me one of those fancy shmancy unico...I mean long distance capable, and economical electric cars?

No...you just don't give a **** if it makes my life suck.

I personally made your life suck? That's a stretch.

I did call you princess so name calling is fair.

Not sure where it became morally or ethically reprehensible to make smart fiscal decisions. Brother if I had the money to buy you and I one, Id do it. I do believe in future, and, I do believe Ford and GM do also.

We gotta quit this false narrative that our machismo is centered around the nut bearing hitches of diesel trucks.

You're a smart guy Ulysses, the anger is petty.

 

[sjt18]

I am also old enough to move past the belief that people always make the best decisions for themselves. Many don't. There are far more dumb people doing dumb things than any of us want to accept. Again, balance. I doubt any two people will agree on what that means precisely, but at 57 I am ok with more of it than I was at 27.

I'm almost 58... and my experience has taught me the near opposite. Yes. People make dumb decisions. But they make far fewer when they have both the freedom to make a decision AND the responsibility for the consequences. I'm OK with far less government intrusion and am for FAR MORE personal responsibility.

I think you have fallen for some deception. Government creates or exacerbates problems... then politicians present new expansions of government power as the solution. That is the process by which our rights and freedoms have been significantly eroded over the last 100 years or so. (The Progressive Era)

But the overshot of what you just wrote is that you think that you can judge whether I am making the best decisions... if 50.1% agree with you or vice versa. That's not conservative. That's not freedom. That's not in alignment with the ideals our country was founded on... that made us the most successful, prosperous, and free nation in written history.

But to your point, yes, government is screwing this up. That Tesla sells cars to rich people who can afford them at full price, while both are subsidized by the gov, is simply criminal.

But as you unpack that... it goes eventually to ALL government interference and manipulation of the market- this one particularly autos.

Government has a "general welfare" responsibility. While I believe an Amendment needs to be passed specifying Congressional powers related to the environment and safety... for now we have "general welfare". I don't think that means voters or their representatives have a RIGHT to dictate EV's as "the solution".... much less use tax dollars to make it the solution. However, Congress can and should change CAFE standards. Reduce the permitted air pollution and increase standards for engine performance/economy... then let the market figure out how to comply. Let the new "Edison" create a new "lightbulb".


One way to do that is biofuels. Brazil runs essentially the same auto engines that we do. They average 30% ethanol in their fuel. We average just over 10%. Their cost per mile is comparable or better. Their emissions are MUCH better from autos. If automakers tuned to run 30%, fuel economy might even be better due to significantly higher octane (cylinder efficiency).

So maybe you're wondering what it would take? The EPA would simply have to acknowledge that newer engines cannot be harmed by ethanol blends up to 30%... take away the "scary" labels and the imputed liability to fuel blenders and distributors as well as warranty concerns for drivers... and you could be paying around 30 cents less for a 91 or 92 Octane fuel.

I ran E-30 recently in my 2019 Tundra and compared to regular E-10. It was not only cheaper... my mileage didn't go down by more than maybe 3%. My engine "sounded" smoother too.

We could go to E-30 as the standard fuel within months. It would significantly reduce CO2 emissions without change of infrastructure. It would be cheaper for most drivers. It would drastically reduce the health concerns from auto emissions. The reason it is pretty near impossible is that the oil AND EV lobbies are lined up against it... and regulations prevent it.

 

[Devo182]

Gates is barely able to veil his belief that the answer to all world problems is reduced human population. I think most people are oblivious to the danger guys like him represent.

And the folks that can't afford 10 kids? Does anyone think that's responsible? It's simple math to look at financials and having kids.

It's also basic math to look at current resources and human populations and wonder.

The big scare tactic is that any of this has to do with going out and offing folks what an absurd strawman.

Luckily first world affluency and shifts in Maslow's hierarchies for individuals tend to follow with fewer children and more sustainable populations within areas. And so rising education, literacy, and lowered impoverishment worldwide, as we have seen for decades, are great first steps.

But people want to ignore all that and think the world is actually getting worse when nearly every metric is improving

 

[Devo182]

I dont have any kids so yes I did my part.

Well done. I'm still a bit greedy. Just being honest. Yes, I want a small version of myself. I know it's selfish and self-serving...but 1 child is still below the replacement rate, so hoping he/she won't cause too much destruction Guess we'll see...

 

[Glitch]

If we are truly concerned about CO2 emissions, we should put a tax on politicians and celebrities that try to tell people what they should do and how they should do it all the time. All the oxygen they waste and CO2 they expel with their blowhard opinions on what is best for me and my family far outstrips any damage caused by internal combustion engines of automobiles in our country.

 

[Jackcrevol]

I'm almost 58... and my experience has taught me the near opposite. Yes. People make dumb decisions. But they make far fewer when they have both the freedom to make a decision AND the responsibility for the consequences. I'm OK with far less government intrusion and am for FAR MORE personal responsibility.

I think you have fallen for some deception. Government creates or exacerbates problems... then politicians present new expansions of government power as the solution. That is the process by which our rights and freedoms have been significantly eroded over the last 100 years or so. (The Progressive Era)

But the overshot of what you just wrote is that you think that you can judge whether I am making the best decisions... if 50.1% agree with you or vice versa. That's not conservative. That's not freedom. That's not in alignment with the ideals our country was founded on... that made us the most successful, prosperous, and free nation in written history.


But as you unpack that... it goes eventually to ALL government interference and manipulation of the market- this one particularly autos.

Government has a "general welfare" responsibility. While I believe an Amendment needs to be passed specifying Congressional powers related to the environment and safety... for now we have "general welfare". I don't think that means voters or their representatives have a RIGHT to dictate EV's as "the solution".... much less use tax dollars to make it the solution. However, Congress can and should change CAFE standards. Reduce the permitted air pollution and increase standards for engine performance/economy... then let the market figure out how to comply. Let the new "Edison" create a new "lightbulb".


One way to do that is biofuels. Brazil runs essentially the same auto engines that we do. They average 30% ethanol in their fuel. We average just over 10%. Their cost per mile is comparable or better. Their emissions are MUCH better from autos. If automakers tuned to run 30%, fuel economy might even be better due to significantly higher octane (cylinder efficiency).

So maybe you're wondering what it would take? The EPA would simply have to acknowledge that newer engines cannot be harmed by ethanol blends up to 30%... take away the "scary" labels and the imputed liability to fuel blenders and distributors as well as warranty concerns for drivers... and you could be paying around 30 cents less for a 91 or 92 Octane fuel.

I ran E-30 recently in my 2019 Tundra and compared to regular E-10. It was not only cheaper... my mileage didn't go down by more than maybe 3%. My engine "sounded" smoother too.

We could go to E-30 as the standard fuel within months. It would significantly reduce CO2 emissions without change of infrastructure. It would be cheaper for most drivers. It would drastically reduce the health concerns from auto emissions. The reason it is pretty near impossible is that the oil AND EV lobbies are lined up against it... and regulations prevent it.

View attachment 434162

that's it,

 

[SSVol]

I'm almost 58... and my experience has taught me the near opposite. Yes. People make dumb decisions. But they make far fewer when they have both the freedom to make a decision AND the responsibility for the consequences. I'm OK with far less government intrusion and am for FAR MORE personal responsibility.

I think you have fallen for some deception. Government creates or exacerbates problems... then politicians present new expansions of government power as the solution. That is the process by which our rights and freedoms have been significantly eroded over the last 100 years or so. (The Progressive Era)

But the overshot of what you just wrote is that you think that you can judge whether I am making the best decisions... if 50.1% agree with you or vice versa. That's not conservative. That's not freedom. That's not in alignment with the ideals our country was founded on... that made us the most successful, prosperous, and free nation in written history.


But as you unpack that... it goes eventually to ALL government interference and manipulation of the market- this one particularly autos.

Government has a "general welfare" responsibility. While I believe an Amendment needs to be passed specifying Congressional powers related to the environment and safety... for now we have "general welfare". I don't think that means voters or their representatives have a RIGHT to dictate EV's as "the solution".... much less use tax dollars to make it the solution. However, Congress can and should change CAFE standards. Reduce the permitted air pollution and increase standards for engine performance/economy... then let the market figure out how to comply. Let the new "Edison" create a new "lightbulb".


One way to do that is biofuels. Brazil runs essentially the same auto engines that we do. They average 30% ethanol in their fuel. We average just over 10%. Their cost per mile is comparable or better. Their emissions are MUCH better from autos. If automakers tuned to run 30%, fuel economy might even be better due to significantly higher octane (cylinder efficiency).

So maybe you're wondering what it would take? The EPA would simply have to acknowledge that newer engines cannot be harmed by ethanol blends up to 30%... take away the "scary" labels and the imputed liability to fuel blenders and distributors as well as warranty concerns for drivers... and you could be paying around 30 cents less for a 91 or 92 Octane fuel.

I ran E-30 recently in my 2019 Tundra and compared to regular E-10. It was not only cheaper... my mileage didn't go down by more than maybe 3%. My engine "sounded" smoother too.

We could go to E-30 as the standard fuel within months. It would significantly reduce CO2 emissions without change of infrastructure. It would be cheaper for most drivers. It would drastically reduce the health concerns from auto emissions. The reason it is pretty near impossible is that the oil AND EV lobbies are lined up against it... and regulations prevent it.

View attachment 434162

When I say government, I'm not referring strictly to federal. State and local governments work decently well in many cases. The more accountable, the more successful.

Most people are rational, but government didn't give us cancel culture and people incapable of looking between their legs to figure out what gender they are.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I'm almost 58... and my experience has taught me the near opposite. Yes. People make dumb decisions. But they make far fewer when they have both the freedom to make a decision AND the responsibility for the consequences. I'm OK with far less government intrusion and am for FAR MORE personal responsibility.

I think you have fallen for some deception. Government creates or exacerbates problems... then politicians present new expansions of government power as the solution. That is the process by which our rights and freedoms have been significantly eroded over the last 100 years or so. (The Progressive Era)

But the overshot of what you just wrote is that you think that you can judge whether I am making the best decisions... if 50.1% agree with you or vice versa. That's not conservative. That's not freedom. That's not in alignment with the ideals our country was founded on... that made us the most successful, prosperous, and free nation in written history.


But as you unpack that... it goes eventually to ALL government interference and manipulation of the market- this one particularly autos.

Government has a "general welfare" responsibility. While I believe an Amendment needs to be passed specifying Congressional powers related to the environment and safety... for now we have "general welfare". I don't think that means voters or their representatives have a RIGHT to dictate EV's as "the solution".... much less use tax dollars to make it the solution. However, Congress can and should change CAFE standards. Reduce the permitted air pollution and increase standards for engine performance/economy... then let the market figure out how to comply. Let the new "Edison" create a new "lightbulb".


One way to do that is biofuels. Brazil runs essentially the same auto engines that we do. They average 30% ethanol in their fuel. We average just over 10%. Their cost per mile is comparable or better. Their emissions are MUCH better from autos. If automakers tuned to run 30%, fuel economy might even be better due to significantly higher octane (cylinder efficiency).

So maybe you're wondering what it would take? The EPA would simply have to acknowledge that newer engines cannot be harmed by ethanol blends up to 30%... take away the "scary" labels and the imputed liability to fuel blenders and distributors as well as warranty concerns for drivers... and you could be paying around 30 cents less for a 91 or 92 Octane fuel.

I ran E-30 recently in my 2019 Tundra and compared to regular E-10. It was not only cheaper... my mileage didn't go down by more than maybe 3%. My engine "sounded" smoother too.

We could go to E-30 as the standard fuel within months. It would significantly reduce CO2 emissions without change of infrastructure. It would be cheaper for most drivers. It would drastically reduce the health concerns from auto emissions. The reason it is pretty near impossible is that the oil AND EV lobbies are lined up against it... and regulations prevent it.

View attachment 434162

I can run E85 in my truck and cars but I've notice a significant difference in fuel economy. Many times it negates and cost savings in the fuel. I've researched a bit and from what Ive learned is that to use more ethanol would require more corn. More demand for corn could cause food shortages and drive corn prices up. Brazil's climate is better suited as well as its warmer. They still have a small tank similar to a windshield washer fluid tank that hold gas to get the engine running then it shuts off to run the ethanol. I'm about the same age as you and I agree whole heartedly. With freedom comes responsibility. We've given lots of freedom but demanded very little personal responsibility.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I personally made your life suck? That's a stretch.

I did call you princess so name calling is fair.

Not sure where it became morally or ethically reprehensible to make smart fiscal decisions. Brother if I had the money to buy you and I one, Id do it. I do believe in future, and, I do believe Ford and GM do also.

We gotta quit this false narrative that our machismo is centered around the nut bearing hitches of diesel trucks.

You're a smart guy Ulysses, the anger is petty.

I can't afford your vision...period. If you want an electric car, (which by the way, since you are so dead set on imposing the things on the rest of us, I assume that's what your family drives?) I have no problem with them, but I sure as heck will never be able to have one, and never mind traveling long distances in a short period of time or pulling a camper around the country, which completely screws me over. Since people like you who vote for these assholes are responsible for all this being implemented...then yeah it feels personal.

You don't care if my dreams of travel are ruined, and I barely have survival money thanks to massive inflation....$5 a gallon gas and expensive groceries and other needed commodities only hurts people like me that are low middle class, it makes it impossible for us to travel much, or have any money to do anything with...I won't be able to finish my bucket list if this keeps up and prices just keep going higher, and that freaking infuriates me.

I like you, and I think you are a nice guy, but people like you are the reason this is happening. People like you have voted these jackasses into office, and that angers me.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

And the folks that can't afford 10 kids? Does anyone think that's responsible? It's simple math to look at financials and having kids.

It's also basic math to look at current resources and human populations and wonder.

The big scare tactic is that any of this has to do with going out and offing folks what an absurd strawman.

Luckily first world affluency and shifts in Maslow's hierarchies for individuals tend to follow with fewer children and more sustainable populations within areas. And so rising education, literacy, and lowered impoverishment worldwide, as we have seen for decades, are great first steps.

But people want to ignore all that and think the world is actually getting worse when nearly every metric is improving

You are blind

 

[InVOLuntary]

Are y'all following Canada? It's headed our way too.

 

[bignewt]

of course it is

 

[sjt18]

I can run E85 in my truck and cars but I've notice a significant difference in fuel economy. Many times it negates and cost savings in the fuel.

E-85 never really worked as hoped. The sacrifice in BTU's is too great even considering the octane improvement. You also have a range of 50-80% ethanol in E-85. The "flex fuel" idea is that you can run a range of fuels but finer tuning is needed to get the best economy. Volkswagen released a 100% ethanol vehicle a couple of years ago in Brazil. Early reports were that the mileage was less but the fuel economy was roughly the same.

The optimum blend is probably 30% to 40%. That would essentially eliminate the tailpipe carcinogens while reducing CO2 emissions from vehicles by more than 20% net. With better farm practices that number would go much higher. The car has to be designed and tuned for higher compression.

As a sidenote, a group has developed a retrofit that will convert a diesel engine to ethanol. I believe Deere is working with them to develop an alternative engine.

I've researched a bit and from what Ive learned is that to use more ethanol would require more corn. More demand for corn could cause food shortages and drive corn prices up.

That is an often repeated false narrative perpetuated again by certain environmental groups and the oil industry. Scientific advances in agriculture are making a huge impact. Yields in 1980 were around 80 bushels/acre. Now the national average is over 170. Test plots in various states are getting well over 300 bushels/acre with hybrids that require less fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides. Without much question, average yields will exceed 250 and approach 300 within the next 20 years. If ethanol blends do not increase, there is no other market to consume that extra corn. Farming operations will shut down.

So what, right? Who cares if farms shut down? The problem that creates is instability in the corn and bean market. Ethanol consumes around 40% of the corn harvested today. Removing that will destabilize the corn market AND make production much more regional. A bad storm or two through Iowa would in fact create a food shortage. The risks of such an event would make food prices much higher. Most row crop operations today could not exist without either ethanol or MASSIVE government expenditures to stabilize the market and disperse production.

Brazil's climate is better suited as well as its warmer. They still have a small tank similar to a windshield washer fluid tank that hold gas to get the engine running then it shuts off to run the ethanol.

Largely true... but not that relevant to the US. No one is proposing a 100% ethanol passenger vehicle with an internal combustion engine. But to the point of freezing, that problem was largely overcome with additives early in the roll out. Blends under 40% do not require gas starters for sure.

You didn't mention it but one of the other often mentioned myths is that ethanol is subsidized. There have been no subsidies for ethanol in over 10 years. Even then, the subsidies went to blenders (often big oil companies) rather than ethanol producers. Today, ethanol benefits from regulations which require big oil to blend a certain number of gallons each year. This is necessary again because of other federal regulations controlling fuels. Ethanol is the best available octane enhancer. It does not have the BTU value of gasoline (about 70%) but it does have energy value. It is far cleaner than other octane enhancers.

One obstacle is that entry into the fuel market is restricted by heavy regulation. You can't just decide you are going to start storing, blending, and distributing fuel. Every attempt to do so can be delayed for years or blocked by lobbying efforts in DC. The other major thing that causes oil companies to resist ethanol is that the artificial octane enhancers are often biproducts of oil refineries. They are a very large revenue stream for the oil companies. In spite of being AWFUL for human health and the environment, oil companies prefer their octane enhancers to ethanol even though the latter is cleaner AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER at the pump.

I'm about the same age as you and I agree whole heartedly. With freedom comes responsibility. We've given lots of freedom but demanded very little personal responsibility.

That's why I try to be thoughtful about actions of government that promise to produce a desirable result if we just give them power to control decisions.

Good discussion I think.

 

[sjt18]

@InVOLuntary PS- the other part of the food vs fuel myth is the parts of the corn kernel most valuable for animal feed are not converted to ethanol. Bioprocessing produces ethanol and co-products with essentially no waste. A bushel on average will produce about 3 gallons of ethanol (20 lbs), 15 lbs of feed, a pound or so of corn oil, and steam.

 

[InVOLuntary]

@InVOLuntary PS- the other part of the food vs fuel myth is the parts of the corn kernel most valuable for animal feed are not converted to ethanol. Bioprocessing produces ethanol and co-products with essentially no waste. A bushel on average will produce about 3 gallons of ethanol (20 lbs), 15 lbs of feed, a pound or so of corn oil, and steam.

Great information! Thank you.

 

[sjt18]

Great information! Thank you.

Kind of my business if you had not guessed.

I receive and skim/read several newsletters per day from API on one end to a Renewables organization that posts a lot of pie in the sky types of ideas- not easy to tell what is realistic and what is just an indirect appeal for investors.

Biomass is going to grow in importance. I think most across the spectrum expect that.