On 13 Mar, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/13/07 23:33, Greg Folkert wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:52 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>> Why not just go bioethanol in a larger percentage year round?
>>>> Portland is, and it might go statewide by the end of the session.
>>>> Gasoline sales are banned here for the better.
>>> Probably because to produce 1 gallon of bio you need to use 1
>>> gallon of gasoline. It's completely 0-sum right now.
>>
>> Actually there is about a 7% loss right now. So 1 gallon of Ethanol
>> equates to a loss of energy rather than a gain.
Estimates of the amount of petroleum products used to generate
a gallon of ethanol vary quite a bit, certainly more than that 7%.
Also, it takes energy to produce gasoline, so that should be taken in
account in comparisons. Overall, using ethanol will decrease the amount
of fossil fuel usage, but the exact amount is not certain at this point.
>
> But that doesn't matter. What matters is that socialist control
> freaks get to tell you what to do.
>
> But you knew that... ;)
>
>
The biggest group pushing ethanol usage in the US is midwestern
farmers. I didn't know that they were so enamored of socialism. :-)
-Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
