Greg,
I agree with all points except for your last paragraph of releasing CO into
the atmosphere.  Burning biofuels does release CO into the atmosphere, but
the end result is a neutral process as the plant that produced that oil or
alcohol consumed as much CO as you produced by burning it.  Burning fossil
fuels releases new [really million year old CO!] CO into the atmosphere,
thus adding to what is there.

David Marshall

Fast Forward Automotive Inc.
4356 Quesnel-Hixon Road
Quesnel BC Canada  V2J 6Z3

http://www.fastforward.ca    mailto:sales@fastforward.ca
Phone: (250) 992 7775        FAX: (250) 992 1160

- Vanagon Accessories and Engine Conversions
- Vanagon, Transporter and Iltis Sales and Importation
- European Lighting for most Volkswagen models

Due to the large volume of email  we  receive,  PLEASE  include  previous
emails when responding.  This will allow us to read the complete dialogue
in one message and will result in quicker and more  accurate  responses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
Of Greg Potts
Sent: March 5, 2005 5:45 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: gas prices- a canadian perspective

Hi Jim,

I've heard about that study, but have not looked at it in detail. But I
can tell you this: If you want to know about the legitimacy of a study,
look at who produced it and who is quoting it. My bets are that the
study in question was done by the petrochemical industry, and being
quoted by one of their lobby groups. Any study submitted to the press
is designed to support an agenda. That's what they're for.

Personally, I would expect that if ethanol actually cost more energy to
produce than it contains, the price would reflect that. And I know that
even *if* current ethanol production techniques are inefficient, that
doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to stay that way as the
demand for ethanol increases.

Biodiesel is definitely worth looking at, but the cost of re-fitting my
aircooled buses to a diesel powerplant is NOT insignificant. And as the
cost of gasoline continues to increase I can only expect the cost of
suitable donor diesel powerplants to increase.  Sigh. I'm only just now
getting somewhat proficient wrenching on my gasoline engines.

Carbon added to the atmosphere due to transportation technology doesn't
care if it's from corn, sugar beets or dead dinosaurs, the end result
is no different.

Happy trails,

Greg Potts
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

1973/74/79 Westfakia Conversion **Bob the Tomato**  LY3H
1977 Sunroof Automatic L63H/L90D
http://www.pottsfamily.ca/westfakia
http://www.busesofthecorn.com

On 5-Mar-05, at 8:24 PM, Jim Felder wrote:

>>
>>
>> The bad news is that alcohol as an additive burns hotter and produces
>> less power than gasoline. My air-cooled buses are going to hate that.
>>
>
> I am all for paying farmers for fuel rather than mid-east royal
> families, but I've seen studies--don't know if they're legit or
> not--that show that the energy benefit from the ethanol is less than
> the energy used to produce it.
>
> Vegetable diesel might do better. Besides, the carbon load it puts
> into the air came from last year's crop, so there's no net co2 gain
> unlike petro fuel which loads the atmosphere with carbon from long ago
> that otherwise wouldn't be there.
>
> Jim
>
>
>