Life on the other side of the looking glass

 

1. Maybe if they could make it from brussel sprouts instead of corn--it would be a win-win scenario.

   Posted by JimT       05/01/2008  at  05:27 PM  



2. kudzu!! never-ending supply source!

   Posted by Rancino       05/01/2008  at  06:45 PM  



3. I would suggest that if we could find a way to tap all the hot air being spewed by the socialist far left, we’d never have an energy problem again. But then, we dare not let them know this, cos they’d realize they could solve global warming just by shutting up.

   Waitaminit.... okay that’s not an *actual* downside....

   Posted by GrumpyOldFart       05/02/2008  at  06:18 AM  



4. One must wonder about Senator Kennedy’s motivation.  Does the “Champion of Chappaquiddick” have money invested in oil and not corn?

   Senator Lieberman has a better track record of integrity and decency, by all accounts.  This may be a case where Senator Kennedy is technically right, but for the wrong reasons.

   On the other hand, the liberals who whine and cry about the pollutive effects of oil consumption also decry any possible alternative; no nukes, no drilling in the US, no wind power where it blocks Senator Kennedy’s view, no this, no that. 

   Oh, ethenol is bad, too.  Children are starving in Africa.  Not that any liberal cares Islamofascists are murdering children in Africa - we shouldn’t interfere with ‘those people’s internal problems’.  But if there’s an excuse to interfere with US energy policy, “Children are starving in Africa”.

   Posted by Archie       05/02/2008  at  12:03 PM  



5. My state has gone to a mandated 15% Ethanol in the gasoline, after banning MTBE as an oxygenating additive.  Everyone I know agrees - their gas mileage is off ~30%.

   In the neighboring state, 10% ethanol is the rule in many stations, others still use MTBE.  After talking to some friends, I find that their TESTED mileage is off ~20% if they use this gas.

   It appears (with my admittedly unscientific but still compelling research) that every 1% increase in Ethanol means a 2% reduction in mileage.

   This is helping pollution HOW exactly?  Not to mention the demand for (and thus price of) Oil?

   Keeping it in round numbers, instead of getting 500 miles from 20 gallons of gas, I’m getting 350.  I’m burning 17 gallons of actual gasoline, thus getting 20.58 actual MPG of “real” Gas.

   Prior to this ethanol debacle, I got 425 miles from 17 gallons of gas. 

   Thus, any way you slice it, I am burning MORE GASOLINE to cover the same distance - thus BURNING / WASTING MORE FUEL.

   Tell me again how this helps either the pollution or cost of fuel?  Let’s not even get me started on how this affects my family’s bottom-line.

   Idiots.

   DD

   Posted by Dedicated_dad       05/02/2008  at  02:27 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.