29 June 2009

Monday Musings...
We're starting off another week sort of right where we left off the last week regarding celebrity deaths, and although we might not think of these three people as celebs, they were in their own right, and in their own time.
** Billy Mays, famed pitchman of (at least) the last decade passed away at his home in Florida yesterday at the age of 50.
Coroner results are pending as to the cause of death.
Here's the WIKI link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mays
He was a fellow Pennsylvanian (born In McKees Rocks, PA in 1958) and got his start hawking "as seen on TV" items on Atlantic City's famed Boardwalk (where I probably walked right past him in a time long ago).
Maybe getting that Oxi-Clean wouldn't have been such a bad idea, in retrospect.
I actually bought a few of the products he pitched over the years, and they weren't all that bad...they worked as advertised.
It would have been nice if he could have "pitched" a better solution to the economic crisis in America...seeing him in Congress, or even the Oval Office would have been worth the price of admission!
Now...he's "God's Pitchman".
That ought to be very interesting.
** Gale Storm, noted TV star of the 1950s passed away at the age of 87.
She starred in shows like My Little Margie, and The Gale Storm show.
And she wasn't bad on Dad's eyes...(or mine).
Not bad for a little girl from Texas, hmm?
Here's the WIKI link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale_Storm
** Lastly, the father of screen and Broadway actor Tony Roberts, Ken Roberts has passed away at the age of 99.
If you're as old as I am, you probably heard him as the announcer on grandma's soap opera shows (when they used to air in fifteen-minute segments, instead of half hour shows).
And here's a link to the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/27/AR2009062702344.html
Think of him like you would Gary Owens (Laugh-in), or a Don LaFontaine (did all those movie trailers and a Geico commercial).
** Now, with ALL this stuff out of the way, let's take a look in your GAS TANK, shall we?
(WTF did he just say?)
That's right...I said GAS TANK, as in the receptacle that holds the fuel for whatever you are driving these days.
(Source article):
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090628/BIZ/306289953
Betcha didn't know that whatever you are putting in there (as far as gasoline goes) is TEN PERCENT ETHANOL...didja?
The oil companies aren't stopping THERE, either. They PLAN to add another FIVE PERCENT, basically making what we call "gasoline" something more akin (read exactly) like the "E-85" pumps we're beginning to see. E-15 will be the new pump at the station.
Some states (other than Indiana) have a "custom-blend it yourself" mish-mosh of gas/ethanol...so you can "pick your poison", as it were.
Now before you go and start proclaiming to the world that you've been driving a "hybrid" vehicle (for years) and want a "rebate" from someone in Washington, D.C., put the car in PARK, catch your breath, and calm down.
Most NON-hybrid cars will "run" on "E-15"..but not as well as they were designed to run (oops, someone didn't tell us THAT, did they?) simply because the engine is set up (and computer-controlled) to run on GASOLINE.
And with a higher "E", the situation only gets worse.
Now that damn onboard computer will "try" to accommodate by attempting to run "normally" on E-15, and maybe you won't feel much of a difference...(now).
The problem will come when you turn the vehicle OFF...and it wants to KEEP RUNNING, shaking all over (like the song used to say). That's a little something we called PRE-IGNITION. It happens when the combustion chamber has a "hot spot", or a piece of carbon that re-ignites the fuel/air mixture even without a spark.
You car might also "knock" under acceleration, like someone is taking a piston and whacking it against the firewall.
You can thank ETHANOL for those issues, folks!
Ethanol burns HOTTER, ergo, it causes a whole new set of problems with COMPUTER-CONTROLLED vehicles. Now back in the OLD days, all YOU had to do was tinker with the carburetor by adjusting the fuel mixture, the air mixture, and the idle speeds, and you were pretty much good to go.
Henry Ford knew AS MUCH when he designed the old MODEL T.
That bugger would run on ANYTHING from kerosene to moonshine...AS WELL AS GASOLINE (when it was available due to the lack of pumps across the nation...and the lack of highways too).
But today, it's a lot different. And we're paying the price somewhere, trust me.
If you look at the ETHANOL usage versus production...BOTH have pretty much plateaued over the last few years, although overall U.S. production has increased. Some ethanol plants have even SHUT DOWN, because of market saturation (as I predicted they would).
Now this isn't to say that Ethanol will go away (unfortunately).
It won't, and that's too bad.
Ethanol just isn't AS efficient a fuel source as gasoline...sorry, folks.
Sure, it burns HOTTER, but it burns FASTER, too.
That means more fill ups at the pumps to get the same MPG you USED to get with plain old gasoline.
The overall efficiency rating of ethanol is about 75% of gasoline.
Now, hold on...we're not quite DONE yet, people.
Ethanol is ALSO a lot more CORROSIVE to certain items under the hood of your vehicle...like all those RUBBER COMPOUND "thingys" such as FUEL LINES. Ethanol is also corrosive to certain metals, plastics and nylon compounds. Alcohol and these things don't get along all that well, it seems.
Now, I don't know about YOU, but "greening up the old planet" by turning MY vehicle into some sort of (potential) poster child for Fire Prevention Week by dumping some E-15 in my tank, isn't MY idea of saving the Earth, right?
In other words..."Fuel leaks under the hood....are BAD, M'kay?"
I "suppose" retro kits can be made available for older vehicles, but that STILL doesn't address the problem of inefficiency with ethanol consumption (except to make a few folks running the show VERY wealthy).
Weird thing about ALL of this, is that the DOE (Dept. of Energy), the car makers AND the EPA haven't REALLY tested the problems I mentioned in any depth yet (but they're rolling out ethanol hand-over-fist).
They're pretty much "winging it" and crying "Havoc", while letting slip the "dogs of war", as it were.
I guess "they" want to see "if" WE buy into this BS, turning our older cars and trucks into rolling tiki torches...OR whether we'll speak the hell up and demand some real ACTION regarding all this crap.
Ethanol is another band-aid on a much more severe broken leg, and we'd best start paying attention to ALL that's being said about it, good AND bad. Ethanol might be all well and good in some INDY cars racing at 220+ MPH around a track, getting about TWO MPG along the way, but that sure as hell isn't helping the soccer moms and other regular citizens who DEPEND on their vehicles to get them from *A* to *B* one damn bit.
Time to speak up and have these companies and the politicians supporting them, to give us THE FACTS...ALL of them.
Your vehicle is going to be your SECOND-LARGEST investment (unlike you're like the wife and I who have moved our COMPUTERS to that coveted # 2 spot with all the glitches we encounter on a regular basis...but that's another post for another day) after your house, and it's up to every one of you to make your voices heard.
All we, the people, are asking for is the TRUTH.
Don't lie to us.
Don't assume we're ALL dumber than a bag of rocks.
Don't think YOU know what's best for every one of us.
Don't insult our intelligence.
After all, THEY (companies and politicians) answer to US...and not the other way around.
So, wherever you drive, and whatever station you fill up at...
Stay safe out there, America.

10 comments:

ms nk rey said...

Wow! finally a man who knows what a thingie is.

Bob G. said...

MSN:
Well, I didn't wanna go and get all "technocratic" on everyone.

Not everyone knows what an EGR valve...is, or where the O2 sensors are located.

What can I say?
(that's our Bob)

Thanks for stopping by!

;)

Diane said...

Oh, I was reading about that e-15 over at the Mulchblog - ewg.org's blog.. it'll kill the older cars, ruin their engines, and pretty much set them afire. (on a good day). So everyone will be forced to buy a new car.. in the meantime, we're doing BAD policy by burning FOOD for a fuel that is harmful. http://www.ewg.org/newsrelease/Factual-Analysis-Debunks-Corn-Ethanol-Industrys-Call-to-Waive-Clean-Air-Act-Fuel-Standards
pretty much sums it up.

Bob G. said...

Diane:
Thank you for digging around and coming up with this link.

Like I tell everyone....watch BOTH hands of these charlatains!

They are out to BS the lot of us.

Thanks for stopping by.

B.G.

Frank W. James said...

As a farmer who has benefited from the move toward ethanol I have no objections to your complaints against it. That's your right, but I do OBJECT to those who imply it is immoral, or worse, to burn 'food' for 'fuel'. If that isn't a line of communist logic or similar leftist crap I don't know what is.

I raise a commodity and it's nobody's business, except those who pay an agreed upon price for it, on how it will be used. That's the premise behind Capitalism!

To argue it is wrong to use 'food' for 'fuel' is no different than arguing it's wrong for a single, economically successful person to live in a big house, while a poor family with many children live in a dirt floor shanty. Or that it is wrong for a woman to own dozens of shoes when there are children who have never had a single pair of shoes in their lives.

How the commodities I raise and are used is a decision to be made by the free market-place not some politically left oriented 'feel good' 'we know better than you' oligarchy.

It was farmers, people like myself, who researched and initiated the ethanol movement years ago when the price of corn fell well below the cost of production and we were forced to rely upon government aid to survive. Once a solution was found then all those who wouldn't pay what the commodity actually cost started complaining it was 'right' to use food for fuel.

This country has had 70 years of cheap food as its official policy, but to guarantee cheap food the government and the tax payers have to agree to literally 'hoard' food in government owned storehouses. (A large surplus has to be maintained and the private sector won't do it, so the gov't must do so.) The Bush administration for whatever reason (and with Al Gores' help) decided to deviate from that policy. That's why ag commodities experienced such wild fluctuations a year ago, but it was NOT completely because of ethanol.

Ethanol contributed to it, but an economic perfect storm was created by a combination of factors that no one, either in government or the private sector, foresaw.

As for the future, it is safe to predict that 'food' will increasingly become ever more expensive, but that doesn't mean the real producers will profit from this increase or that bad mouthing ethanol will make it any cheaper.

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Bob G. said...

Frank:
I have absolutely NO problem with whatever crop ANY farmer raises...

And even though I'm a city boy, I do appreciate ALL that the farmers of this nation do FOR all of us, and I think it's a damn shame to see the government dictate to anyone who has the courage to plant a crop, till the land, and harvest it HOW MUCH they can plant, and WHAT they can plant, and HOW it will "best" be used, and even HOW MUCH can be planted.

It's YOUR LAND.

MY concern about using FOOD FOR FUEL, is that with ALL the millions of bushels (of OUR crops) we ship OVERSEAS...well, someone's gonna suffer.
ANd it shouldn't be US.

Interestingly enough, Ben Franklin raised 40 acres of HEMP...used it for sails, rope, (and probably even smoked it) until TOBACCO became the "hot lick".

I wish you well and trust you will continue to be what America represents.
Farmers are what America was before industry came along.

Thanks for the comments.

B.G.

Frank W. James said...

Bob: the government gets the right to tell farmers what to do because in the years we 'over-produce' we depend upon government hand-outs;i.e. agricultural 'welfare' to stay economically viable.

It's the national cost of maintaining the production capability to be self-sufficient in 'lean' years.

I don't like it, but being an adult I realize that's the price of being dependant upon someone when times get tough.

What I don't appreciate is the thought process among many otherwise rational Americans that somehow using something that can be consumed as 'food' but instead is used as 'fuel' as somehow being morally wrong.

That is ABSOLUTE CRAP!!!!

If that isn't a line of logic out of Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto then I don't know what is.

Ethanol may, or may not be, a good idea. It all depends upon your relative starting point, but what I resent above all else is someone preaching from a position of moral superiority (like your previous poster) when they don't understand the economic factors involved (the history of agricultural economics has often been one of feast or famine) or the investment many of us have in our farms, but most disturbing of all IS the FAR LEFT political thought such a theory represents.

I think two guys named Lenin and Stalin tried social experiments along the same lines of thought a few decades ago over in Europe someplace.

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Bob G. said...

Frank:
Personally, I'm all for HYDROGEN tech for vehicles, but that train of thought doresn't sit well with Wall St, I guess.

If there is any moral ground about using food for fuel, it might be contested that if *I* had to choose between feeding my family or filling up my truck, I'd choose the family.

I feel that my children's stomachs might carry a higher moral attitude in THAT context.

But, that's just "me".

Then there's the export aspect, and the need to utilize certain crops to feed LIVESTOCK...I guess politicos don't take all that into account.

Still, there are no better farmers than the ones right HERE..right now.
Maybe the wall streeters need to appreciate that?

B.G.

Frank W. James said...

Bob: that's a slippery slope you're trodding.

'Morality' includes many instances where "...if it will just save one child's life..." has been used to justify some of the worst excesses known to man.

Let each of us decide on our own what is moral and leave the 'state' to decide what is legal? Whenever the 'state' gets involved with 'morality', it has a rather dismal record of success. You as an active police officer probably know that far better than most.

I know children are starving somewhere both here and abroad but does that make it immoral for my corn to be used as fuel or whiskey or hog feed?

It is just being used after being purchased at an agreed upon price. The market will determine how it's used and morality has nothing to do with the situation, only economics.

That's the way it should be in my opinion, but I'm a Capitalist, NOT a Communist.

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Bob G. said...

Frank:
I hear where you're coming from, and I can understand that, but I'm not referring to "saving the world"...not when we have problems more immdeiate RIGHT HERE in America.

I often feel that the best test for any nation is not how we handle the affairs of OTHERS, but rather how we deal with out OWN issues.
And "if" we can help others along the way, all the better.

I strongly agree that the STATE has NO business dictating, or even suggesting how MY (or your) morality should fall...the Consitution was written to address just such an issue.

This can never be a case where "one size fits all", because every SITUATON is as different as is everyone's sense and level of morality.

And having trodden way too many slippery slopes in days gone by, I've learned that golf shoes are a Godsend...LOL.

(also, I'm no longer an "active" member of any thin blue line..OR the FEDS...and to be honest, I don't know if I could handle the way it is OUT THERE NOW...times are changing faster than I can keep pace.)

Thanks for the comments & your thoughts...they are much appreciated by me.

B.G.