 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The article you cite is really terrible. I have no idea what brasschecktv.com is or where it gets its facts, but many of the number items listed are just plain wrong.
First, on this idea that original cars ran on alcohol, and the implication that gasoline took over as primary fuel due to the prohibition. This is complete and total nonsense.
It's true that some early engines ran on alcohol, but so what? There were some early car engines that ran on steam.
eatenbyagrue,
Please consider backing up your conclusions with data, any data, a link, a book, a quote, a newspaper article, something, anything, please, something other than mere negation.
http://www.permaculture.com/
There is a link to David Blume; so anyone an begin to inspect the data offered by David Blume.
http://www.permaculture.com/node/354
That is a pre-emptive (or ongoing) answer to the skeptics from that site (not my site).
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Prohibition+of+alcohol+by+oil+companies&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
That is a simple Google search on the words: Prohibition of alcohol by oil companies
Here is the top of the list on that search:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=2599
Alcohol Prohibition removed competition for Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company
I don’t posses or control perfect information. I don’t have it, I don’t know where to get it, but I do know that people are being tortured and mass murdered by legal criminals, and one way those legal criminals get the power to torture and mass murder is deception.
If I knew the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I suppose I’d be God.
I’m not.
First oil wells were dug in 1859. The distillation into kerosine happened around that time. The first cars, in the early 1890's used petrol as fuel, and this quickly became the norm. I believe all the early Ford models, from the A, C to the T models all ran on gasoline. A simple Google search will confirm this.
OK: Search for:
Early conversion alcohol motor fuel
Find this:
http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_drane.html
In the early days of automotive industry several manufacturers produced motors designed to run on alcohol, instead of the relatively new and scarce product called gasoline. The Ford Model T was originally designed to burn alcohol, gasoline or a combination of both. However, Ford and other manufactures soon bowed to the intense pressure exerted by the emerging oil monopolies of the time and began designing motors with gasoline as the only intended fuel.
Several makers of farm tractors have continued production of alcohol engines. They are for export only, and you will probably never see a factory-engineered alcohol tractor in this country in this country at this time.
Are they as false as David Blume, because you say so, or because you have data proving that the Ford Model T was NOT originally designed to burn alcohol, gasoline or a combination of both?
I would like to know the truth about this subject.
So this idea that early cars ran on alcohol and somehow the prohibition put an end to this is just plain false.
Please consider offering data in support of the truth – please.
Next, there is the claim that alcohol can be produced at $1 per gallon. This is wrong on two levels. First, it is misleading. A gallon of ethanol is much less dense than gasoline, so it is not comparable gallon to gallon. Second, according to most sources, ethanol cannot be produced at $1 per gallon. Current estimates are about $1.75 per gallon.
Your basis for refuting the claims made by someone is claim made by an unspecified source. David Blume claims to have produced alcohol fuel and in so doing he claims to know how much it cost to produce alcohol fuel – so you are claiming that David Blume is a fraud? I want to get this straight, without ambiguity. Are you claiming that David Blume is a fraud? If you are then I will expend some energy and time toward contacting David Blume; so as to allow him to defend himself against this charge by you.
I am not sure what effect growing more corn for ethanol would have on the price of food, but to say there would be no effect is counterintuitive. Mass use of corn and other plants for fuel would increase demand for those plants. And we know what happens when demand rises.
I think that you misunderstand the point. It may be me. I think that the point is that independent people can use their own land, their own water, and their own power, to make their own motor fuel, and I thing that point is separate from the “macro” economic point.
What should the U.S.A. do to satisfy power needs?
That is a “macro” economic question. I don’t think that David Blume is saying: “The U.S.A. should make alcohol for motor fuel.” I think the idea is for individuals to take control of their own power needs, and alcohol production is one competitive method by which that goal can be accomplished in each individual case where the individual understands the individual costs and benefits for him or her self.
I don’t think that David Blume is speaking “collectively” as if what works for one person must therefore work for everyone – if that is what you are saying.
Later, there is the claim that using plants for fuel is incredibly efficient? How so? As I pointed out, lots of money is spent on irrigating, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting, processing, all of which requires its own fuel, money, and leaves a carbon footprint.
How using planes for fuel is incredibly efficient is explained by David Blume, so any reader who wishes to answer that question may want to listen to the presentations by David Blume. I listened and his presentation makes a lot of sense, in particular the part where oxygen is produced by the plants as they consumer carbon monoxide. The same thinking applies to Algae as fuel – which I think is more efficient than using corn, sugar, or other plants that do not reproduce themselves as quickly as Algae.
What do I know?
Next is a thinly veiled conspiracy theory, that somehow the oil companies are discouraging the use of ethanol. I am not sure who makes ethanol exactly, but I know that oil companies sell the blended product, so they are making money there too.
Please consider backing up your not so thinly veiled conspiracy theory on David Blume’s work. Opinion backed up by data is better than opinion backed up with no data – in my opinion.
And hey, if it was a great business, the oil companies would be interested in it. After all, ethanol is renewable. Exxon could set up ethanol processing plants - it has the money.
Who is Exxon? You speak as if Exxon is a person.
Anyway, maybe you just did not think too much about what you are posting, and that is understandable, as you do not have many readers, but if you want this site to be a resource for someone, or persuade someone, and not just sound like you are quoting random things and hoping something will stick, you should do your due diligence.
You are now turning your venom on me. You don’t know how much thought I have expended. You also don’t know how many readers read these posts. Please stop this personal attack routine; you are now wasting my time.
Last edited on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 08:20 pm by Joe Kelley