• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

EPA might 'slash' Ethanol in gas

Be it a car, airplane or a ship......in-situ measurements of efficiency/performance often provide ample opportunity for bogus results. Thus, they are loved by salesmen.
and posters who don't want to accept the underlying chemistry that is obvious even to liberal arts grads.
;)
 
Babes in the woods

And I guess ya'll think this is a new subject. Ya'll I just had to throw that in there, I'm from Tennessee.

Please check out this link, another bit of wisdom from the Hemp Car.

http://hempcar.org/ford.shtml
 
and posters who don't want to accept the underlying chemistry that is obvious even to liberal arts grads.
;)

I agree.
Also, something was stated earlier about fuel economy testing standards being set by the EPA in the 70s, and not changing much. As I have visited quite a few auto manufacturer dyno labs through out my career, I know a few things. Highway fuel economy i still based on a 55mph cruising speed, I have seen the fuel "warmed up" to "help" the economy rating of an engine, and don't forget that testing in a lab is under "perfect" conditions.
You will never hit your rated fuel consumption on a 30 degree day traveling at 75 mph.....
 
I agree.

You will never hit your rated fuel consumption on a 30 degree day traveling at 75 mph.....

No mystery. Fuel consumption is proportional to shaft power. Shaft power is a function of velocity to the third power or greater. Accordingly, many trucking companies promote lower speeds to save fuel costs. Traveling 65 vs 75 cuts a big tractor trailer fuel consumption from 8~8.5 MPG to 5~5.5MPG.
 
I wouldn't put much faith in the rationality of such a choice. Washington is pay to play and the corn lobby has bought a lot of the (subsititute your own epithet) folks in Congress.
The idea of using a food crop to burn, especially when it take so much petroleum to make it that there is little net energy gain, has never made sense except as a subsidy for farmers.
Brazilians make it from sugar cane and so could we if sugar wasn't such a screwed up commodity in this country- long history of political corruption there as well.

We're already seeing a lot of inflation in food prices, a concern clearly reflected in public surveys but hidden by the inaccurate way the govt does COLA math and corn isn't what's doing it yet- at the moment its a combo Bernanke printing money and fuel prices...
I have read that we in USA, have the highest priced sugar in the world-so a lot politically will have to give to make real headway on that type fuel-BTW,the Brazilian version is not the kind you eat.
 
I have read that we in USA, have the highest priced sugar in the world-so a lot politically will have to give to make real headway on that type fuel-BTW,the Brazilian version is not the kind you eat.

A big cause is sugar tariffs and quotas:

If sugar quotas were eliminated, and American consumers and business had been able to purchase 100% their sugar in 2009 at the world price in 2009 (average of 22.1 cents per pound) instead of the average U.S. price of 38.1 cents, they would have saved almost $2.5 billion. In other words, forcing Americans to pay 38.1 cents for inefficiently produced beet sugar instead of 22.1 cents for efficiently produced cane sugar, costs Americans an additional 16 cents per pound for the 15.4 billion pounds of American sugar produced annually, which translates to almost $2.5 billion. (Note: This is an estimate based on the assumptions that: a) the amount of sugar consumed in the U.S. and b) world prices, wouldn't change.)

Bottom Line: The cost of most trade protection is largely invisible and hard to calculate, but the cost of sugar protection is directly visible and measurable, since the USDA and the futures markets regularly report prices for both high-cost domestic sugar and low-cost world sugar. Like all protection, sugar tariffs exist to protect an inefficient domestic industry (sugar beet farmers) from more efficient foreign producers (cane sugar farmers), and come at the expense of the U.S. consumers and the American companies using sugar as an input, and make our country worse off, on net.
 
Bottom Line: The cost of most trade protection is largely invisible and hard to calculate, but the cost of sugar protection is directly visible and measurable, since the USDA and the futures markets regularly report prices for both high-cost domestic sugar and low-cost world sugar. Like all protection, sugar tariffs exist to protect an inefficient domestic industry (sugar beet farmers) from more efficient foreign producers (cane sugar farmers), and come at the expense of the U.S. consumers and the American companies using sugar as an input, and make our country worse off, on net.

That's what they say every time we ship / lose jobs overseas. Our national interest includes more than getting the cheapest thing every time. Pretty soon we can all buy all the cheapest stuff with our unemployment checks - Oh wait, where do those checks cove from if we ship all the jobs to the cheapest place??

Free trade seems to be a one-way street, to me.
 
Maybe it would help, to point out exactly how a thread got "off track" and violated the posting guidelines when such is being determined by the Admin.

Uh, can you now see how we are pretty far off track?? We're not talking about sugar subsidies and jobs going overseas. A bit far from the original post methinks!!

Anymore off track and this will be headed for the barn!

Admin out!
 
A big cause is sugar tariffs and quotas:

If sugar quotas were eliminated, and American consumers and business had been able to purchase 100% their sugar in 2009 at the world price in 2009 (average of 22.1 cents per pound) instead of the average U.S. price of 38.1 cents, they would have saved almost $2.5 billion. In other words, forcing Americans to pay 38.1 cents for inefficiently produced beet sugar instead of 22.1 cents for efficiently produced cane sugar, costs Americans an additional 16 cents per pound for the 15.4 billion pounds of American sugar produced annually, which translates to almost $2.5 billion. (Note: This is an estimate based on the assumptions that: a) the amount of sugar consumed in the U.S. and b) world prices, wouldn't change.)

Bottom Line: The cost of most trade protection is largely invisible and hard to calculate, but the cost of sugar protection is directly visible and measurable, since the USDA and the futures markets regularly report prices for both high-cost domestic sugar and low-cost world sugar. Like all protection, sugar tariffs exist to protect an inefficient domestic industry (sugar beet farmers) from more efficient foreign producers (cane sugar farmers), and come at the expense of the U.S. consumers and the American companies using sugar as an input, and make our country worse off, on net.

Those cane sugar quota and tariffs were aimed at a fellow named Castro that had a cash crop called sugar. When other countries, like Canada, dropped their tariffs, many of our bakeries and confectioners (i.e., Hershey) moved production to Canada and export to the US.
 
That's what they say every time we ship / lose jobs overseas. Our national interest includes more than getting the cheapest thing every time. Pretty soon we can all buy all the cheapest stuff with our unemployment checks - Oh wait, where do those checks cove from if we ship all the jobs to the cheapest place??

Free trade seems to be a one-way street, to me.

Paul,

When was the last time you heard an American CEO claim that his American team develops and builds the best product in the world? It's just not important to the MBA set.

Jon
 
Uh, can you now see how we are pretty far off track?? We're not talking about sugar subsidies and jobs going overseas. A bit far from the original post methinks!!

Anymore off track and this will be headed for the barn!

Admin out!

I guess you saw this coming:rolleyes:rolleyes As I usually do not participate in political discussions in non-political forums, I will leave this here table also.:thumb
 
When was the last time you heard an American CEO claim that his American team develops and builds the best product in the world? It's just not important to the MBA set.

Rather than smear a particular group, why not post the more accurate statement that it's just not important to lots of customers. (See "cheapest thing on a BMW.")

"Best product in the world" is limited to luxury goods, don't you think?
 
Rather than smear a particular group, why not post the more accurate statement that it's just not important to lots of customers. (See "cheapest thing on a BMW.")

"Best product in the world" is limited to luxury goods, don't you think?

Sorry, I can't go there with you. I started working in the large industrial equipment segment of the economy. It really meant something when you watched the 20 to 33-ft rotors and scroll casings being built for the largest hydro-electric dams across the world.

That isn't a luxury good. It's the type of pure raw equipment that powers a nation and a modern world.

BTW - the German gov't invests heavily in maintaining a lead in many such industries.
 
Back
Top