Ethanol they are thinking about 15% we need help!

[MOP]

http://smarterfuelfuture.org/resource-center/details/food-for-thought-holiday-dinner-costs-continue-to-rise

[f_inscreenname]

We have more oil and Nat gas in the ground than we know what to do with but yet we are still slaves to the middle east and we turn food into fuel just because we can. Bazzaro world.:bonk:

[Greg Guimond]

100% agree ......... f 'em and there corn juice

[John C in PA]

Actually f_in, we're slaves to the administration in Washington who suck off the so-called "environmental" groups in the never ending quest for votes. In regard to oil, the WH continues to restrict oil drilling so we end up shoveling money to countries that truly hate America. Power plants using coal and gas are openly under attack by the current administration. The same "environmental" groups to suck off. And we can thank G. Bush for the ethanol crap we burn. Farmers votes perhaps?

Groups like the Sierra Club apparently would prefer America continue to fund terrorists, and put coal miners out of work rather than see America prosper. Rant over.

John C in PA

[gcarter]

A little off subject, but still related....
I read the other day that the Interior Dept fined a wind turbine company for killing Bald Eagles. The turbine company was furious as they get all kind of protections, subsidies, and pay no taxes. I think this is REALLY funny.

Too bad about the eagles though.

[BUIZILLA]

I thought the EPA killed the 15% idea last week?

[tmdog]

I thought the EPA killed the 15% idea last week?

Read the same article and was overjoyed. Wanted to reply but didn't want to bust MOP's bubble.

[Moody Blu']

The fact is we do not need oil to live in todays society, we still have oil because the oil companies have a strangle hold on everything.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5Jq_h-qyU

[gcarter]

The fact is we do not need oil to live in todays society, we still have oil because the oil companies have a strangle hold on everything.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5Jq_h-qyU

Broque;
You must live on another planet, or New jersey, maybe.
That statement is about as absurd as they get.
I'd like to see this world live w/o oil.

.......to start with, all the roads would have to be concrete, or maybe dirt!

[olredalert]

----It was widely reported this past week that the overall use of ethanol in fuel is down. Why wouldnt it be? Nobody with E85 capable vehicles actually uses E85 that Ive ever talked to. Matter of fact the sales figures of E85 vehicles has to be down severly. The mileage with E85 goes down below what the difference between the price of gas against the price of E85 supports. All the corn growers are furious. Too bad! I think that any stab at upping the ethanol content to 15% in fuel is being pushed by the corn lobby. Just my opinion......Bill S

[woobs]

The USA imports oil from about 30 different countries. However, almost 70% of the imported oil comes from just five (5) countries.
Three (3) of those countries are Canada, Mexico and Argentina with Canada being the largest importer of oil to the USA accounting for about 27% of total oil imports. Total imports from Canada are about 32% greater than the total imports from ALL persian gulf countries combined.

Funny thing is ...gas in the USA is considerably less at the pumps than it is in Canada. And that's not just due to the ethanol content. US based oil companies control the majority of the oil resources in Canada. We blame our politicians for the rest (taxes).

[Moody Blu']

Broque;
You must live on another planet, or New jersey, maybe.
That statement is about as absurd as they get.
I'd like to see this world live w/o oil.

.......to start with, all the roads would have to be concrete, or maybe dirt!

No, the roads would be magnetic, the cost to magnetic roads will cost a lo,t once they are completed however there is no need to "reinstall" them like they do with asphalt.

you do know that even as of today they put a lot of rubber in asphalt roads so that they CAN break apart so that the municipal road workers can keep their jobs since they always have to "fix" the roads. This logic is not smart because oil is not a sustainable asset it is being depleted and therefore not sustainable.

perpetual motion motors are real. free energy is real. both are sustainable.

my statement seems absurd but if you break out of the box and open up your world to new more efficient ways of living well then it may not be absurd after that.

[olredalert]

----Ah,,,A true conspiracy theorist. Those road workers have a really strong lobby, dont cha know.........Bill S

[Conquistador_del_mar]

No, the roads would be magnetic, the cost to magnetic roads will cost a lo,t once they are completed however there is no need to "reinstall" them like they do with asphalt.

you do know that even as of today they put a lot of rubber in asphalt roads so that they CAN break apart so that the municipal road workers can keep their jobs since they always have to "fix" the roads. This logic is not smart because oil is not a sustainable asset it is being depleted and therefore not sustainable.

perpetual motion motors are real. free energy is real. both are sustainable.

my statement seems absurd but if you break out of the box and open up your world to new more efficient ways of living well then it may not be absurd after that.


:propeller::nilly::bonk:

[John C in PA]

I researched this too and agree the issue of 15% Ethanol appears to be stopped. For now. However, the current occupier of the White House is a lame duck not facing any more elections and has no fears from the spineless republicans in DC. Like gun control, and make no mistake CONTROL is that end game, 15% Ethanol may come alive again at any time especially if he uses an EO.

God Help America,

John C-impatiently waiting for Spring

[Ghost]

perpetual motion motors are real. free energy is real. both are sustainable..

Bridge salesman? ;)

[mattyboy]

I am working on a solar sail for the hornet over the winter I was going to install a flux capacitor but just couldn't afford it what I really want is a warp core v drive

but that might be too much power and make the boat go so fast it would blow my tin foil hat off :cartman:

[Moody Blu']

I don't blame any of you for your ignorant remarks towards my post. Being the age that all of you are and doing the same thing time and time again I understand how its so hard to think outside the box. Fortunately I have broken that shell. Thanks for mocking me! I'm sorry this is the response I get instead of questions. :propeller::smash::cool::yes::kingme:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

[John C in PA]

Oh,oh, maybe some folks were too quick to jump on MOP. I just found this on Boat US: http://www.boatus.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=958#.UqDP5s3_C61. The EPA isn't done with the ethanol issue, is it? Remember, these folks (EPA) have a rep for extreme regulations.

John C

[Conquistador_del_mar]

I don't blame any of you for your ignorant remarks towards my post. Being the age that all of you are and doing the same thing time and time again I understand how its so hard to think outside the box. Fortunately I have broken that shell. Thanks for mocking me! I'm sorry this is the response I get instead of questions. :propeller::smash::cool::yes::kingme:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

I admire a youthful optimistic approach to technology - that is how things change. We need more Tesla and Einstein type brainiacs to keep the future going in a positive direction. I get discouraged when I see so many people glued to their cell phone/text devices, but I digress. Anyway, more power to your contributions. Onwards.

[Ghost]

I don't blame any of you for your ignorant remarks towards my post. Being the age that all of you are and doing the same thing time and time again I understand how its so hard to think outside the box. Fortunately I have broken that shell. Thanks for mocking me! I'm sorry this is the response I get instead of questions. :propeller::smash::cool::yes::kingme:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

If you want questions, okay. How is it that Newton and thermo have been overcome such that "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are suddenly possible? When you are speaking of violating the basics of physics as we know it, the burden of proof is really kinda on you. Even in the wacky, nonintuitive relativity that I've studied, I never saw 100 % efficiency achieved, or even considered as possible. Thermo basically says
1. you can't get something for nothing
2. The best you can even hope for is to break even
3. You can't possibly break even except at absolute zero

This stuff's pretty well established, both in its theoretical derivation and empirical testing. Never heard anyone even attempt to contradict it. So, do enlighten us Philistines.

(Sidebar: And no offense, but your first and last two sentences quoted above seem pretty contradictory, no?)

EDIT: btw, wheat does the video clip have to do with your claims of "perpetual motion" and "free energy?" None of that is going on there, nor do iI see any such claims discussed, so I'm confused by how they are related.

[gcarter]

If you want questions, okay. How is it that Newton and thermo have been overcome such that "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are suddenly possible? When you are speaking of violating the basics of physics as we know it, the burden of proof is really kinda on you. Even in the wacky, nonintuitive relativity that I've studied, I never saw 100 % efficiency achieved, or even considered as possible. Thermo basically says
1. you can't get something for nothing
2. The best you can even hope for is to break even
3. You can't possibly break even except at absolute zero

This stuff's pretty well established, both in its theoretical derivation and empirical testing. Never heard anyone even attempt to contradict it. So, do enlighten us Philistines.

(Sidebar: And no offense, but your first and last two sentences quoted above seem pretty contradictory, no?)

EDIT: btw, wheat does the video clip have to do with your claims of "perpetual motion" and "free energy?" None of that is going on there, nor do iI see any such claims discussed, so I'm confused by how they are related.

And to enlarge on what Mike said, industry gets excited about a 1% increase in efficiency.....it very rarely happens.

And back to "no oil".........forget energy for a moment, manufacturing, packaging, agriculture, and transportation would be dead in the water w/o it.

[BUIZILLA]

tell the politicians to drain the oil from their cars, and see how that works for them... :jestera:

[mattyboy]

And to enlarge on what Mike said, industry gets excited about a 1% increase in efficiency.....it very rarely happens.

And back to "no oil".........forget energy for a moment, manufacturing, packaging, agriculture, and transportation would be dead in the water w/o it.


yes
petroleum and it's by-products are in our everyday life just like Zinc Oxide


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaDJdHPykEA

[Moody Blu']

Orffyreus

[Ghost]

Orffyreus LOL, that's all you got?! Looks like it's just the hoofbeats of horses this time. Change into a 9-year-old Hindu boy. Next act...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdqh0GsXMII

[Moody Blu']

tesla

[Ghost]

tesla

For cryin' out loud, stick a verb in it already.

Einstein. Tesla. Pick your genius/innovator. Then tell us which of them found a means to "perpetual motion" or "free energy," both of which you have claimed are real. Not only would either of them tell you it hadn't been done, I expect they'd tell you it was impossible.

There is not only no evidence that either exists, there is plenty of evidence that both are impossible for humans to achieve. Further, your silly little video not only fails to demonstrate either, it doesn't even CLAIM to.

So, WTF are you even blathering about in this thread? How about producing some evidence, or even a complete sentence, to support your claim that "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are real? The geniuses who've given us the laws of physics were not naysaying Luddites, they were innovating dreamers. At the same time, they were guided by what they could prove and observe and test and repeat in the real world. They were not clowns living in a fantasy world.

So, produce some evidence (which will be pretty hard) or grow a pair and admit it was a dumb thing to claim (which should be both easy and liberating). We all say stupid things now and then. That's no big deal. But holding steadfastly to whatever stupid thing came out of one's mouth is clinically crazy.

[BUIZILLA]

free energy??

really?

seriously?

​don't tell Obama, or he'll tax whats free there too

[Moody Blu']

For cryin' out loud, stick a verb in it already.

Einstein. Tesla. Pick your genius/innovator. Then tell us which of them found a means to "perpetual motion" or "free energy," both of which you have claimed are real. Not only would either of them tell you it hadn't been done, I expect they'd tell you it was impossible.

There is not only no evidence that either exists, there is plenty of evidence that both are impossible for humans to achieve. Further, your silly little video not only fails to demonstrate either, it doesn't even CLAIM to.

So, WTF are you even blathering about in this thread? How about producing some evidence, or even a complete sentence, to support your claim that "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are real? The geniuses who've given us the laws of physics were not naysaying Luddites, they were innovating dreamers. At the same time, they were guided by what they could prove and observe and test and repeat in the real world. They were not clowns living in a fantasy world.

So, produce some evidence (which will be pretty hard) or grow a pair and admit it was a dumb thing to claim (which should be both easy and liberating). We all say stupid things now and then. That's no big deal. But holding steadfastly to whatever stupid thing came out of one's mouth is clinically crazy.

Your being a luddite.

Neither found a means to perpetual motion.....:banghead you are blathering too

the last paragraph you wrote is projecting YOU.

Barbour questioned Einsteins theory of relativity which was influenced by Mach

its funny free energy is all around us and I'm mocked? solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectricty

I did produce evidence of perpetual motion, Orffyreus

Orffyreus like Tesla was screwed over. Jp morgan saw noprofit so his greed killed free energy.

are you fvcking kidding me open up your mind dude

[Ghost]

Your being a luddite.

Neither found a means to perpetual motion.....:banghead you are blathering too

the last paragraph you wrote is projecting YOU.

Barbour questioned Einsteins theory of relativity which was influenced by Mach

its funny free energy is all around us and I'm mocked? solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectricty

I did produce evidence of perpetual motion, Orffyreus

Orffyreus like Tesla was screwed over. Jp morgan saw noprofit so his greed killed free energy.

are you fvcking kidding me open up your mind dude

If someone hands you a sandwich, it wasn't a free lunch. Rather, it was a lunch paid for by someone else. All human-usable and human comprehensible energy sources CONSUME more energy than they usefully exploit. They all have some fractional efficiency. The concept of "free energy" is meaningless unless one means more energy is produced than is consumed, wherein that efficiency would somehow exceed 100%. Nothing you (or anyone else) has described does this. The notion of an efficiency greater than or equal to 100% is essentially the same concept as perpetual motion, as it is a requirement for the perpetual motion.

The things you have mentioned in your post are not "free energy" sources in this sense at all. Further, your claim that perpetual motion "is real" in concert with things like wind/solar/hydroelectric suggests you don't understand the distinction.

Further, you appear to be hopelessly ignorant of the costs associated with the "free energy" sources you cite.

Solar panels cost. Dams cost. Wind turbines cost. By your meaningless definition of so-called "free energy", oil is no different. It should be just another "free" source of energy in your eyes, because you ignore the cost of tapping the resource AND the finite nature of the stored energy within the resource. Oil drilling/refining/distribution costs are no different than the cost of building windmills or dams or solar panels. The broken math of your model is an accounting gimmick where you fail to measure the whole picture. Much like the idiot who thinks it will save on his air conditioning cost if he leaves his fridge open, because all of that cool air that pours out, presumably (incorrectly so) at no cost. Or the fool who thinks running a separate window air conditioner cuts his cooling bill, because he is not looking at his total cost, but rather just a subset: the cost to run the central ac unit. In both cases, he is simply failing to measure the whole of the system. The window unit costs him too, but he's simply overlooking that cost. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it is all too real and he is just in error in his analysis. The part that is most confusing to the novice analyst in most scenarios is POTENTIAL energy. Energy has already been put into wind, light, flowing water, and OIL. When we exploit it, we are expending energy to tap it, AND we are using up the STORED POTENTIAL. But we're always USING more energy than we can usefully apply. The efficiency is ALWAYS less than 100%. Getting around this, best anyone can tell, is impossible. It is only claimed by the ignorant any by charlatans who know better but choose to exploit the ignorant.

Of course, anyone can be rich in his mind if he chooses to (or unwittingly happens to) ignore his accounts payable.

BTW, the "free energy" of Tesla fame was NOT ever believed to actually produce more energy than it consumed (the meaningful definition of "free energy" and the equivalent of "perpetual motion"). It was simply energy created at a typical power plant but DELIVERED over electromagnetic waves instead of copper wires. Essentially, it was power transmitted by wireless, much like radio, only at power levels rather than signal levels. JP Morgan nixed it because there was no place to put the meter. In other words, there was no way to bill people for what they used. But it has NOTHING to do with "perpetual motion" or "free energy." It was just another delivery mechanism for energy that follows the very laws of thermo I cited before. The only illusion of anything being "free" was because it was being paid for by someone else. The power company would have all the usual costs on the production side, just no way to bill for what people took on the consumption side.

As for Orffyreus and perpetual motion, the proof is in the pudding. Anyone who could create that would become the richest man on the planet, or his invention would be stolen by someone else who would soon become that. All rival sources of energy would immediately become useless and economically not viable. So far, nobody seems to have produced this free energy/perpetual motion, much less stolen it. The man you mention, and everything he ever created, have...ahem...stopped moving. I thought it pretty hilarious in college when I saw a piece of graffiti that said "God is dead. -F. Nietzsche." Because someone had scrawled in response: "Fred is dead. -God"

Luddites are fools who deny the clear reality that technology will move forward. They are, of course, hopelessly wrong. Technology will march boldy forward. But technology will only move forward through rigorous real-world science within the confines of the possible. It will not change what is possible, but rather it will only expand the understanding of what is possible. For instance, the atomic bomb came into being because people learned more about what was possible within the laws of nature, not because they changed what those natural laws dictate. A taller stepstool will only reach more shelves that do exist, but it won't reach shelves that don't exist. Technology will not grow through magic that transcends the possible and ignores or denies rigorous science. That's just fantasy. Until some almighty force grants us powers greater than observation and learning and compliance with physics as we know it.

[BUIZILLA]

its funny free energy is all around us and I'm mocked? solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectricty we'd like to see a boat, any boat, with solar panel's and wind turbines... :tooth:

[gcarter]

Actually Jim, there're many, many of them:

http://lunar.thegamez.net/greenenergyimage/boat-wind-generator/sailboat-wind-generators-800x600.jpg

This type is neat as it seems to be non-directional. I don't think they out perform a traditional Marconi sail rig though.

But wind and solar are tremendously expensive and generation costs are over $1.00/KH.
The typical wind farm production in places like the North Sea where the wind REALLY blows is about 21% and requires 100% fossil fuel back up in case the wind stops. But the important thing is a decent steam electric plant operates at maybe over 30%. Where's the advantage?
Recent advances in solar is about decreases in manufacturing costs, not greater output per panel, which still is between 15%-20%. No improvement in sight either.

[Marlin275]

some of these . . .

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=78389&d=1386522712

The University of Malta has successfully designed and tested a boat that runs on electrical energy which is fueled by green sources.
The boat, which is designed to do short tourist cruises (think harbor tours), is powered by solar energy and wind power and has an intelligent battery system designed to show exactly how much energy and time the boat has left on its battery, depending on electrical power and weather conditions.

[BUIZILLA]

but wind and solar are tremendously expensive and generation costs are over $1.00/KH.
The typical wind farm production in places like the North Sea where the wind REALLY blows is about 21% and requires 100% fossil fuel back up in case the wind stops. But the important thing is a decent steam electric plant operates at maybe over 30%. Where's the advantage?
Recent advances in solar is about decreases in manufacturing costs, not greater output per panel, which still is between 15%-20%. No improvement in sight either. I think this pretty much summarizes Ghost's point... :shades:

[Carl C]

I'd like to see more use of nuclear power in ships and maybe even trains and super trucks. The reactor could be sealed in a crash proof container. Free energy!

[Moody Blu']

wind, solar, hydroelectric do not consume oil like that of a coal plant. they cost money, however money is an illusion that we were born into, whilst all the materials are from the earth for us to do what we please with it, with or without money. Unfortunately we have been going down a path of depletion and pollution. Our way of thinking is we need to be paid to do anything instead of working together for the greater good of mankind. Its called generosity. We can be in a world where no one starves and everyone has a place to live in, transportation etc. this is what can move technological advancements forward.

The problem is just to get some kind of great invention out into the market, like you said it can be stolen before you get your patent. and to just get a patent and investors for the idea takes a lot of money. meanwhile there are people that I am sure have had flashes of genius but no way to get them out to the public, whether it be no money or fear of someone stealing it because of all the stories about ideas being stolen and the creators getting screwed over and no credit. If the world appreciates people who do have ideas and dont steal them and make it easy for new ideas to flourish then that in itself will advance technology at an alarming rate. However we live in a world where money greed and power skews how new ideas come to light and its not nice. we are our own worst enemy.

germany has been shutting down its coal plants in favor of solar energy..

furthermore my neice is working her way towards a nobel prize for a new solar panel that increases output of the cells.

when constraints are lifted off of the people of the world more and more good will come from it. the world will benefit and we can possibly avoid destroying our planet which unfortunately is the road we are on.

In some countries they have sea gates to protect there land from massive destruction from rising storm tides etc. Some countries have turned down the construction to build sea walls because the cost is too high...... NYC for example had thought about doing sea walls years ago but cost was too high(in the billions) well sandy came and went and the damage done to nyc was around 42 billion. NJ was around 60 billion. well i guess there was hindsight with all of that?

money is a huge problem with our world and drives people to do and not do things. we were born on this earth and everything on it is ours nothing is owned but we have this illusion that has been forced upon us.

I believe perpetual motion will come to light at some point and free energy will win.

[Ghost]

wind, solar, hydroelectric do not consume oil like that of a coal plant. they cost money, however money is an illusion that we were born into, whilst all the materials are from the earth for us to do what we please with it, with or without money. Unfortunately we have been going down a path of depletion and pollution. Our way of thinking is we need to be paid to do anything instead of working together for the greater good of mankind. Its called generosity. We can be in a world where no one starves and everyone has a place to live in, transportation etc. this is what can move technological advancements forward.

The problem is just to get some kind of great invention out into the market, like you said it can be stolen before you get your patent. and to just get a patent and investors for the idea takes a lot of money. meanwhile there are people that I am sure have had flashes of genius but no way to get them out to the public, whether it be no money or fear of someone stealing it because of all the stories about ideas being stolen and the creators getting screwed over and no credit. If the world appreciates people who do have ideas and dont steal them and make it easy for new ideas to flourish then that in itself will advance technology at an alarming rate. However we live in a world where money greed and power skews how new ideas come to light and its not nice. we are our own worst enemy.

germany has been shutting down its coal plants in favor of solar energy..

furthermore my neice is working her way towards a nobel prize for a new solar panel that increases output of the cells.

when constraints are lifted off of the people of the world more and more good will come from it. the world will benefit and we can possibly avoid destroying our planet which unfortunately is the road we are on.

In some countries they have sea gates to protect there land from massive destruction from rising storm tides etc. Some countries have turned down the construction to build sea walls because the cost is too high...... NYC for example had thought about doing sea walls years ago but cost was too high(in the billions) well sandy came and went and the damage done to nyc was around 42 billion. NJ was around 60 billion. well i guess there was hindsight with all of that?

money is a huge problem with our world and drives people to do and not do things. we were born on this earth and everything on it is ours nothing is owned but we have this illusion that has been forced upon us.

I believe perpetual motion will come to light at some point and free energy will win.

Well, that was all over the map, but it's worth addressing a couple of points. Maybe.

First, based on your last sentence, thanks for at least implicitly acknowledging that there is no perpetual motion and there is no free energy in the here and now. While I feel comfortable assuring you that you are incorrect about any humanly-attainable free energy or perpetual motion, now or in the future, that should not be misinterpreted to mean that there won't be advancements in newer and better sources of energy than those we use today.

Second, it should be pointed out that the notions highlighted in red above are inherently contradictory. Stealing only has meaning if things are owned. I always used to laugh at the amazing, succinct self-contradiction inherent in the scrawls of "rent is theft" seen around my college campus. Same concept. "Rent" is mutually-agreed-upon payment to an owner for use of his property. Theft is the taking of someone's property without mutually-agreed-upon compensation. Rent is not only not theft, it is nearly the opposite of theft. Further, for theft even to have meaning, ownership must exist. What's so beautiful about people writing "rent is theft" is how quickly and clearly it positively identifies them as either fools or charlatans.

Third, contrary to the quoted post above, "money" is not the problem in this world and neither is "ownership" or the illusion of it. The problem is actually theft, in all its forms. Pick any subject of controversy in human interaction and it is fairly easy to show that the root problem is actually theft. Interestingly, much like matter and energy were shown to be inextricably linked, theft and non-defensive-force are nearly interchangeable, viewed correctly.

Last, for clarity on a particularly confusing subject, the fiat currencies of the world ARE a huge problem. So, while HONEST money is a great thing, fiat currency is a long-perpetuated racket. It is theft, by way of force. I mention this because the general concept of money about which MB has complained is actually quite above reproach, but the specific money most of us use IS a huge problem. That's a bit of a tricky point, but an important one.

[gcarter]

I seem to remember the non-ownership of private property is one of the tenets of the Communist Manifesto. I always have a problem of shared use of goods and property.....I can't think of a single country where it's worked w/o force and threat of imprisonment.
Maybe Broque has been taught left leaning ideals w/o the history to back it up.
As far as energy goes, we have enough natural gas, oil, and coal to last us the next 500 years probably, w/o any shortages.
I remember studying American history in elementary school and how the first oil well in Pennsylvania came at a critical point in history (it was a big deal, as it was about the centennial of the event) where the industrial revolution was about to overtake the supply of whale oil. It funny to me how these things happen....I call it God! But when mankind has a need, the proper advancement in technology takes place.......but note that we aren't short of energy, far from it! We don't need wind farms, solar farms, and the very expensive electricity they produce. Instead, we need a greater infrastructure of NG pipelines, and maybe NG filling stations.

[Scott Pearson]

:popcorn::boggled:

[hardcrab]

:popcorn::boggled:

That corn didn't pop itself ............ ya had to nuke it! :cool: