Weight Watchers Flex and SmartPoints System

Further information

Vegetarianism
October 20, at But that was false as all gas is required to have an oxygenate. We were just visiting friends in Rochester yesterday and ate at a Turkish place for lunch. Ethics of eating meat. Pythagoras was reportedly vegetarian and studied at Mt. Thanks for the reply, Robert. Island Press, Washington, D.

Columnists

Why Ethanol Free Gas is More Popular than E85

Regular meat eaters had the base mortality rate of 1. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts". Out of the major causes of death studied, only one difference in mortality rate was attributed to the difference in diet, as the conclusion states: In Mortality in British vegetarians , [] a similar conclusion is drawn:.

British vegetarians have low mortality compared with the general population. Their death rates are similar to those of comparable non-vegetarians, suggesting that much of this benefit may be attributed to non-dietary lifestyle factors such as a low prevalence of smoking and a generally high socio-economic status, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish. The Adventist Health Studies is ongoing research that documents the life expectancy in Seventh-day Adventists.

This is the only study among others with similar methodology which had favourable indication for vegetarianism. The researchers found that a combination of different lifestyle choices could influence life expectancy by as much as 10 years.

The researchers concluded that "the life expectancies of California Adventist men and women are higher than those of any other well-described natural population" at The life expectancy of California Adventists surviving to age 30 was The Adventist health study is again incorporated into a metastudy titled "Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?

Statistical studies, such as comparing life expectancy with regional areas and local diets in Europe also have found life expectancy considerably greater in southern France, where a low meat, high plant Mediterranean diet is common, than northern France, where a diet with high meat content is more common. A study by the Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, and Institute of Physiological Chemistry looked at a group of 19 vegetarians lacto-ovo and used as a comparison a group of 19 omnivorous subjects recruited from the same region.

The study found that this group of vegetarians lacto-ovo have a significantly higher amount of plasma carboxymethyllysine and advanced glycation endproducts AGEs compared to this group of non-vegetarians. According to studies by the Permanente Journal and the National Institute for Health NIH , vegetarian diets are affordable and can help reduce health risks like high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and cholesterol levels.

A plant based diet has the potential to lower the risk of heart disease as well as reducing the amount of medications prescribed in instances of chronic illness. A change to a plant based diet, or vegetarianism, has had dramatic positive effects on the health of patients with chronic illnesses, significantly more than exercise alone [].

Vegetarian diets have been studied to see whether they are of benefit in treating arthritis , but no good supporting evidence has been found. Certain alternative medicines , such as Ayurveda and Siddha , prescribe a vegetarian diet as a normal procedure. Maya Tiwari notes that Ayurveda recommends small portions of meat for some people, though "the rules of hunting and killing the animal, practiced by the native peoples, were very specific and detailed".

Now that such methods of hunting and killing are not observed, she does not recommend the use of "any animal meat as food, not even for the Vata types". The human digestive system is omnivorous , capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material. The American Dietetic Association has presented evidence that vegetarian diets may be more common among adolescents with eating disorders. At the same time the association cautions however, that the adoption of a vegetarian diet may not necessarily lead to eating disorders, rather that "vegetarian diets may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder".

Vegetarianism is associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorder, although causality cannot be established.

Various ethical reasons have been suggested for choosing vegetarianism, usually predicated on the interests of non-human animals. In many societies, controversy and debate have arisen over the ethics of eating animals. Some people, while not vegetarians, refuse to eat the flesh of certain animals due to cultural taboo , such as cats, dogs, horses or rabbits.

Others support meat eating for scientific, nutritional and cultural reasons, including religious ones. Some meat eaters abstain from the meat of animals reared in particular ways, such as factory farms , or avoid certain meats, such as veal or foie gras.

Some people follow vegetarian or vegan diets not because of moral concerns involving the raising or consumption of animals in general, but because of concerns about the specific treatment and practises involved in the raising and slaughter of animals, i. Others still avoid meat because meat production is claimed to place a greater burden on the environment than production of an equivalent amount of plant protein.

Ethical objections based on consideration for animals are generally divided into opposition to the act of killing in general, and opposition to certain agricultural practices surrounding the production of meat. Princeton University professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer believes that if alternative means of survival exist, one ought to choose the option that does not cause unnecessary harm to animals.

Most ethical vegetarians argue that the same reasons exist against killing animals in the flesh to eat as against killing humans to eat, especially humans with cognitive abilities equal or lesser than the animals in question. Singer, in his book Animal Liberation , listed possible qualities of sentience in non-human creatures that gave such creatures the scope to be considered under utilitarian ethics , and this has been widely referenced by animal rights campaigners and vegetarians.

Ethical vegetarians also believe that killing an animal, like killing a human, especially one who has equal or lesser cognitive abilities than the animals in question, can only be justified in extreme circumstances and that consuming a living creature for its enjoyable taste, convenience, or nutrition value is not a sufficient cause.

Another common view is that humans are morally conscious of their behaviour in a way other animals are not, and therefore subject to higher standards. McMahan stated that cognitively disabled human do not possess the same rights as non-disabled humans. While mentally disabled people were in the past often treated with extreme brutality, with the progression of morality most people understand that the rights of the cognitively disabled still include a right to life and kind treatment.

Increasingly, as moral philosophy progresses further, people understand that, outside of survival situations, denying the right to life to animals with equal or greater cognitive abilities than mentally disabled humans is an arbitrary, discriminatory practice based on habit and desire as opposed to logic.

Opponents of ethical vegetarianism argue that animals are not moral equals to humans and so consider the comparison of eating livestock with killing people to be fallacious.

This view does not excuse cruelty, but maintains that animals do not possess the rights a human has. One of the main differences between a vegan and a typical vegetarian diet is the avoidance of both eggs and dairy products such as milk, cheese, butter and yogurt. Ethical vegans do not consume dairy or eggs because they state that their production causes the animal suffering or a premature death. To produce milk from dairy cattle , calves are separated from their mothers soon after birth and slaughtered or fed milk replacer in order to retain the cows milk for human consumption.

A dairy cow's natural life expectancy is about twenty years. In battery cage and free-range egg production, unwanted male chicks are culled or discarded at birth during the process of securing a further generation of egg-laying hens. Ethical vegetarianism has become popular in developed countries particularly because of the spread of factory farming , faster communications, and environmental consciousness.

Some believe that the current mass demand for meat cannot be satisfied without a mass-production system that disregards the welfare of animals, while others believe that practices like well-managed free-ranging and consumption of game, particularly from species whose natural predators have been significantly eliminated, could substantially alleviate the demand for mass-produced meat.

Ancient Greek philosophy has a long tradition of vegetarianism. Pythagoras was reportedly vegetarian and studied at Mt. Carmel, where some historians say there was a vegetarian community , as his followers were expected to be. Roman writer Ovid concluded his magnum opus Metamorphoses , in part, with the impassioned argument uttered by the character of Pythagoras that in order for humanity to change, or metamorphose , into a better, more harmonious species, it must strive towards more humane tendencies.

He cited vegetarianism as the crucial decision in this metamorphosis, explaining his belief that human life and animal life are so entwined that to kill an animal is virtually the same as killing a fellow human. Everything changes; nothing dies; the soul roams to and fro, now here, now there, and takes what frame it will, passing from beast to man, from our own form to beast and never dies Therefore lest appetite and greed destroy the bonds of love and duty, heed my message!

Never by slaughter dispossess souls that are kin and nourish blood with blood! Jainism teaches vegetarianism as moral conduct as do some major [] sects of Hinduism. Buddhism in general does not prohibit meat eating, while Mahayana Buddhism encourages vegetarianism as beneficial for developing compassion. Sikhism [] [] [] does not equate spirituality with diet and does not specify a vegetarian or meat diet.

Theravadins in general eat meat. In the Theravada canon, Buddha did not make any comment discouraging them from eating meat except specific types, such as human, elephant meat , horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena flesh [] but he specifically refused to institute vegetarianism in his monastic code when a suggestion had been made.

In several Sanskrit texts of Mahayana Buddhism , Buddha instructs his followers to avoid meat. Christians have always been free to make their own decisions about what to eat; however, there are groups within Christianity that practice specific dietary restrictions for various reasons. Surviving fragments from their Gospel indicate their belief that — as Christ is the Passover sacrifice and eating the Passover lamb is no longer required — a vegetarian diet may or should be observed.

However, orthodox Christianity does not accept their teaching as authentic. Indeed, their specific injunction to strict vegetarianism was cited as one of the Ebionites' "errors". At a much later time, the Bible Christian Church founded by Reverend William Cowherd in followed a vegetarian diet. They have also sponsored and participated in many scientific studies exploring the impact of dietary decisions upon health outcomes.

Additionally, some monastic orders follow a vegetarian diet, and members of the Orthodox Church follow a vegan diet during fasts. The association grew in prominence during the 19th century, coupled with growing Quaker concerns in connection with alcohol consumption, anti-vivisection and social purity.

The association between the Quaker tradition and vegetarianism, however, becomes most significant with the founding of the Friends' Vegetarian Society in "to spread a kindlier way of living amongst the Society of Friends. According to Canon Law , Roman Catholics are required to abstain from meat defined as all animal flesh excluding water animals on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent including Good Friday.

Canon Law also obliges Catholics to abstain from meat on the Fridays of the year outside of Lent excluding certain holy days unless, with the permission of the local conference of bishops, another penitential act is substituted. The restrictions on eating meat on these days is solely as an act of penance and not because of a religious objection to eating meat.

Since the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the s when the church began, wholeness and health have been an emphasis of the Adventist church, and has been known as the "health message" belief of the church. Obedience to these laws means abstinence from pork, shellfish, and other animals proscribed as " unclean ".

The church discourages its members from consuming alcoholic beverages , tobacco or illegal drugs compare Christianity and alcohol. In addition, some Adventists avoid coffee , tea , cola , and other beverages containing caffeine.

The pioneers of the Adventist Church had much to do with the common acceptance of breakfast cereals into the Western diet, and the "modern commercial concept of cereal food" originated among Adventists. His development of breakfast cereals as a health food led to the founding of Kellogg's by his brother William. In both Australia and New Zealand , the church-owned Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company is a leading manufacturer of health and vegetarian-related products, most prominently Weet-Bix.

Research funded by the U. National Institutes of Health has shown that the average Adventist in California lives 4 to 10 years longer than the average Californian. The research , as cited by the cover story of the November issue of National Geographic , asserts that Adventists live longer because they do not smoke or drink alcohol, have a day of rest every week, and maintain a healthy, low-fat vegetarian diet that is rich in nuts and beans.

He cites the Adventist emphasis on health, diet, and Sabbath-keeping as primary factors for Adventist longevity. Though there is no strict rule on what to consume and what not to, paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal.

However, the food habits of Hindus vary according to their community, location, custom and varying traditions. Historically and currently, those Hindus who eat meat prescribe Jhatka meat, [] while some Hindus believe that the cow is a holy animal whose slaughter for meat is forbidden.

Some followers of Islam, or Muslims, chose to be vegetarian for health, ethical, or personal reasons. However, the choice to become vegetarian for non-medical reasons can sometimes be controversial due to conflicting fatwas and differing interpretations of the Quran. Though some more traditional Muslims may keep quiet about their vegetarian diet, the number of vegetarian Muslims is increasing.

The former Indian president Dr. Abdul Kalam was also famously a vegetarian. Many non-vegetarian Muslims will select vegetarian or seafood options when dining in non- halal restaurants. However, this is a matter of not having the right kind of meat rather than preferring not to eat meat on the whole.

Followers of Jainism believe that all living organisms whether they are micro-organism are living and have a soul, and have one or more senses out of five senses and they go to great lengths to minimise any harm to any living organism. Most Jains are lacto-vegetarians but more devout Jains do not eat root vegetables because they believe that root vegetables contain a lot more micro-organisms as compared to other vegetables, and that, by eating them, violence of these micro-organisms is inevitable.

So they focus on eating beans and fruits, whose cultivation do not involve killing of a lot of micro-organisms. No products obtained from dead animals are allowed, because when a living beings dies, a lot of micro-organisms called as decomposers will reproduce in the body which decomposes the body, and in eating the dead bodies, violence of decomposers is inevitable.

Jain monks usually do a lot of fasting, and when they knew through spiritual powers that their life is very little, they start fasting until death. Some Jains do not consume plant parts that grow underground such as roots and bulbs, because the plants themselves and tiny animals may be killed when the plants are pulled up.

While classical Jewish law neither requires nor prohibits the consumption of meat, Jewish vegetarians often cite Jewish principles regarding animal welfare , environmental ethics , moral character, and health as reasons for adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet.

A number of medieval rabbis e. Many modern rabbis, by contrast, advocate vegetarianism or veganism primarily because of concerns about animal welfare, especially in light of the traditional prohibition on causing unnecessary "pain to living creatures" tza'ar ba'alei hayyim. According to Genesis , consumption of meat was prohibited to human beings 1: Some advocates of Jewish vegetarianism, such as Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook , describe vegetarianism as an eschatological ideal to which all human beings must eventually return.

Jewish vegetarianism and veganism have become especially popular among Israeli Jews. In , Israel was described as "the most vegan country on Earth", as five percent of its population eschewed all animal products. Within the Afro-Caribbean community, a minority are Rastafari and follow the dietary regulations with varying degrees of strictness. The most orthodox eat only " Ital " or natural foods, in which the matching of herbs or spices with vegetables is the result of long tradition originating from the African ancestry and cultural heritage of Rastafari.

Ital cooking in its strictest form prohibits the use of salt, meat especially pork , preservatives, colorings, flavorings and anything artificial. The tenets of Sikhism do not advocate a particular stance on either vegetarianism or the consumption of meat, [] [] [] [] but leave the decision of diet to the individual.

This is understood to have been for the political reason of maintaining independence from the then-new Muslim hegemony, as Muslims largely adhere to the ritualistic halal diet. Guru Nanak said that over-consumption of food Lobh , Greed involves a drain on the Earth's resources and thus on life. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?

Environmental vegetarianism is based on the concern that the production of meat and animal products for mass consumption, especially through factory farming , is environmentally unsustainable.

According to a United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contribute on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation , climate change, and loss of biodiversity.

The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. In addition, animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases. It is not American farmers jobs to take a loss to feed the world. So its not an issue of availability or biofuels. Look at the location of the malnourished. Not openly pollinated crops.

Finally, here is the graph I spoke of earlier, its from the USDA and it shows the price of corn, soybeans, and wheat over time while adjusting for inflation. My great-grandpa used to tell me about when gas was a dime for a gallon. RF makes a classic economic analysis mistake often made by the Left, in which they utilize a closed constrained system.

Everything in static mode, no dynamic understanding or flexibility. The analysis might be correct for the current minute, but one could venture the car would open the door to larger pool of job offers, decreased grocery bills, lower cost transportation, and motivated citizen to hunker down and get it done with increased income.

In general the more income directed to the agriculture the more empowering and capable the trade becomes. All supporting business infrastructure will take a step forward to assist the art of growing things. The problem with starving third world countries is lack of law, stability, supporting infrastructure, and ability. Most of this could be set on the natural path of improvement if profit and income drifted to these farmers.

Biofuel has such ability to inject some income within this trade and kick start the poor farmers to path of gradual improvement. I responded in the following link: So maybe thats the real answer! Tax it out of use. Then no one can complain! Exactly, which is why I have argued its important to get better seed technology to developing nations. They blame ethanol because they want a scapegoat. Look at this link from extension. Using his assumptions you get to 4. So your most expensive feed product accounts for 0.

One thing you need to learn about farmers is that they all like to complain. Its in our DNA. Not good for small farmers who would be bought out by larger farmers, but good for the consumer in general, which is what free markets are all about. It actually happens to us quite often where the price goes from record highs to below production costs one year to the next. Usually the little guy, like us, has all their land and machinery paid off so our cost of production is actually lower than that of the big guy.

As my grandpa said, you can farm acres well, and make more money than the guy who farms acres poorly. And when the big guys go bankrupt the little guy gets to upgrade their equipment on the farm auction. And out of those ashes, some little guy will mortgage the farm, think they have it all figured out, and try to be a big guy. And when grain prices crash again the cycle repeats itself. Should we find a way to make them more expensive to help water heater manufacturers? Water heater manufactures have complete control over their prices.

Farmers end price is dictated by a bunch of suits in Chicago who like to change the price everytime it rains. Farmers plan all their marketing a year in advance. We try to predict each February or March, while there is still snow on the ground, what the growing season and prices will be like come September and October. Oil and gas producers can dial back or increase production on the fly as prices fluctuate. In a regulated market driven economy, the consumer is king, The producer, be it water heater manufactures or corn farmers must bow to the consumer or you eventually would end up like the former Soviet Union.

Its only true when looking back and not taking past prices in context. The historical lows I was pointing out were right before the drought. And even during the drought, these high prices are only high when compared to the previous year. You should not feel guilty about that. If I were a corn farmer I would just accept it as a fact of political life.

No need to create an alternate reality for guilt relief. My wife is a physician. Her wage is high because of lobbying from a powerful interest group that restricts the supply of physicians. My oldest daughter is in medical school to capitalize on that high wage. Before ethanol plants began to pop up the government was paying out billions of dollars a year in LDP payments. This was an adjustment paid to farmers to keep them afloat.

Yes, ethanol has helped create demand, but when put in historical context its still the cheapest its ever been see my chart from my previous post. Does the ethanol mandate help? Yes, but some ethanol would be needed anyway to cover the oxygenate requirements for gasoline.

Did you even look at the chart I had added the link to? Here it is again. If you look at the chart corn is on the bottom, wheat is the middle, and soybeans are on top. Thats the official price adjusted for inflation by the USDA. That might not be the better story, but its the truth, and that chart shows it. Water heaters and refrigerators and computers and on and on have all also been driven to the lowest prices in history by market competition.

Note that they are not in need of government mandated consumption. The problem for consumers and the godsend for corn farmers is the spike in prices relative to what they would have been as a result of government mandated ethanol consumption. The prices of those other things dropping has to do with improving technology, automated manufacturing, and wholesale stores.

Corn has been driven down by better technology but also greater efficiency in fertilizer use, better genetics, and the resulting higher yields per acre.

Look again at that chart and show me where the spike from the ethanol mandate is at. I see spikes due to bad weather years, and a general trend upwards for all three commodities.

Yes, ethanol plays a part in that demand, but so does the developing worlds demand for protein. American farmers have always overproduced themselves into poverty. If water heater makers produced far more than demand they too would overproduce themselves into poverty. Government assistance is keeping small farmers in America afloat.

Whats inconsistent about it? Farmers ramp production up and down, demand swings with it. Again your water heater comparison is off because they would slow production just like any other manufacturer. As I said farmers are guessing what will be needed for the next year during the middle of winter cause you have to have everything ready to go once the ground thaws. And again, I would argue, its not the small guys that need help as much as the big ones.

The high prices were in large part due to mandated ethanol consumption. I think the real issue with your understanding of this is the context.

You do realize we had a massive drought right? During that time corn was expensive so ethanol plants actually slowed down production. The next year was a better growing season, so now there is an abundance of corn and prices are lower. Like I said above your RFA graph was off, so take another look at it and explain how higher ethanol production lead to lower grain prices. High gas prices slowed gas demand and therefore ethanol demand, which decreased the demand for corn, which lowered corn prices, which makes for higher ethanol profits …because its consumption is mandated by government fiat.

Your order of events are off. Take another look at that weekly ethanol production link I shared above. Ethanol demand ramped up all fall because corn was cheap.

Corn dropping September, right before harvest, because the suits in Chicago got market reports that it was going to be a record harvest it was. So the actual order of things was corn prices dropped, for months, then oil dropped, because Saudi Arabia, and now recently ethanol has dropped because there was a glut of production. It has now leveled off again. There was actually a time in December where ethanol was more expensive than gasoline, that was because of how fast oil dropped and how much the export market was booming for ethanol.

India bought a lot of ethanol over the last couple of months. Its still raw grain, priced the same as it is at the local elevator. Thats why my argument was that you can buy all the grain you want, its the transportation that actually adds the cost.

And honestly, as those countries get better at ag, more demand for protein will ensue there as well. Every civilization in history has increased its demand for animal protein as it develops.

The days of the small farmer in America may be limited, sans further government support. Big farmers have to come from somewhere. Feel free to quote what I really said.

If thats not what you meant, please enlighten me. See, it means the same thing. It just shows that you have no argument for my rebuttal. Biofuels are quite environmentally destructive, in addition to competing for land for food and biodiversity. Check the authors of those studies.

I would venture a guess that the authors last names were Pimmentel and Searchinger. And it never will be, profit margins for producing food products is much higher than that of corn and soybeans. Its a lot more work, but much more profitable. Biofuels have scaled very well in Brazil. Both corn and cane ethanol are energy positive,and both are done at a very large scale.

So your answer to one mandate is another mandate? Again your assumption that ethanol production is more destructive is off. Show me one case where ethanol spills have lead to environmental destruction.

Show me a case where ethanol has contaminated drinking water. Take a look at tar sands mining and try to explain to me how ethanol production is more destructive than that. And not even just the ethanol but corn production as well. Altogether thats at least 60 million gallons this year. Then you have one or two in Europe that are producing, one or two more in Brazil, and one was just announced to begin construction in India.

Mine is that corn ethanol use would not expand without mandated consumption and that with expansion comes expanded negative environmental consequences. Remove the government mandate to consume it and the industry would likely collapse.

And no, its not destructive to take ag residue and turn it into ethanol. Also, as I mentioned above, I think that if the market were opened up ethanol use would actually expand. Also, did you know that there are cars that can utilize ethanol and not take a MPG hit? If you opened up the market here those cars would sell and demand would rise. If you truly want a free market, make oil companies take the anti-blender pump language out of their franchise agreements and let ethanol compete.

I think its demand would surprise you. I never said that it was and no American farmer does. Its not a strawman, its how you see it. You say grain prices are too high. You say without biofuels the price would drop and we could feed all the poor.

The adjusted for inflation price of corn in dollars per metric ton in the graph below shows where the price of corn would likely be today without mandated ethanol consumption. But again, if your example the water heater manufacturer sets their own prices. Farmers are collectively at the whim of commodity traders. Water heaters heaters come at different levels of quality, size, heat rate, etc. Corn is the same no matter what farmer you buy it from.

You have a commodity, not a manufactured product. Again your chart only shows the bottom of the chart that I shared above, and will again here http: In context of the last years, its still very very cheap. High grain prices just pour a little gas on that fire. The problems with corn ethanol go far beyond the food price increase issue.

That been the crux of the debate I had with DanceswithDachounds that you entered. You say farmers invested in these plants. I guess you missed the Koch Brothers ad about their ethanol plant — probably the real reason we have this program at all.

I know there are differences in technology timing, air-fuel ratio, etc but told me there was a problem. No more ethanol for me. Koch Brothers make most of their money from oil. So, you are investing with them for continued success. There are some good home tests on ethanol blends for lawnmowers with data on internet.

The best fuel for 4 cycle was the E85 as torque increased, cooler head temperature, smoother engine operation noted as well as better smelling exhaust. The carb jet had to be drilled for proper air fuel mix as that is just normal adjustment to engine.

Also, two cycle engines gained the most benefit if again tuned to the E85 fuel, which is not complicated. Gasoline producers and distributors like ethanol. It makes their fuel better. The fuel acts as inexpensive oxygenate, that is required by EPA. It boosts much valued octane rating of fuel. Ethanol acts to clean fuel system and combustion chamber. Spark plugs, valves, injectors, combustion chamber stay cleaner as well as oil. Detergents utilized in plain gasoline to protect engines, before days of ethanol were expensive and unhealthy for air quality.

Ethanol mostly replaces the much more toxic -tanes of gasoline that are on the EPA watch list for carcinogens. Higher blends of ethanol fuel will produce more horsepower. Just reality and basic chemistry. You need to read up on the subject as all conditions being normal your truck should do better on E15 as compared to E10 and certainly E0. I keep good records with varying blends on my Sierra half ton with k miles.

I get 18 mpg typical with E This is hardly any mileage loss. The engine runs better. About k miles on high ethanol blends. Personalty, would love to have blender pump ability to run E50 all year round, depending on price.

It does run E85 well in summer and I typically run the fuel for 6 months. They like E10 and want it to stop there. E30 blend would push gasoline, per high tech engines, to higher efficiency. As you know ethanol production is low, but growing. The best utilization of the fuel is not E85 unless your avoiding the hyper expensive race fuel. Most E85 attributes go unused within current fleet of transportation.

E30 a sweetheart mix as the new generation of boosted, DI, and EGR engines can maximize their engine efficiency upon this blend. Meaning E85 even wasted on this class. So, to maximize and conserve valuable gasoline we could do much on E30 blend for environment, consumer cost, and conservation.

BTW high altitude car owners benefit from E85 fuel. Like a liquid turbo charger to horsepower needs within low oxygen environment. I know two small engine repair outfits that love E The scunge in the float bowls is impressive.

Then I found a gas station that sells mid grade and premium EtOH free fuel. Remember the common caution when first fueling up on ethanol fuels to change fuel filter as ethanol will clean the varnish and scum from fuel system. You do realize those fuel stabilizers just another alcohol blend. My experience with the normal E10 fuel is quite contrary to your experience. One snow blower in particular was extremely mulely, that was in the days of pure gasoline.

But that was false as all gas is required to have an oxygenate. That would be the alcohol group. Now, methyl alcohol probably made not from wood nowadays, but coal. But, methyl alcohol is way up the danger chain for chemical attack and poison, so not a good choice. Anyways that snow blower, believe it or not always required pulling plug, heating the plug, starter spray and lots of cranking. It did sit most of the year unused.

And this has been my experience since childhood of seasonal equipment. Modern day with E10 fuel just requires a good prime and away you go. I was going to scrap or garage sell that blower. It was miserable to start on plain gas. Mercury Marine has published their approval of E10 with data proving a better fuel for their engines. Now they are against E15 becoming a standard fuel as every time the engine must be tuned to particular fuel and many owners will only come into the shop with problems.

You can see the massive liability and change over costs incurred. Probably best for them to stay E Sad as the two cycle engine would benefit most from high ethanol blends. E85 would be perfect marine fuel for a whole host of reasons. But notice how posters just keep ignoring that point. Let those small engines sit for a couple months and then take them to get repaired because the ethanol ruined the carb or diaphragm in injector system. It lowers the vapor pressure and does not cause a significant loss of energy content.

As far as being an oxidizer, NOX is used by the catalyst to clean up the unburned hydrocarbons. Nitrous oxide levels increase when an engine is tuned for max efficiency. NOX replaced the need for an air pump. Lead in gasoline polluted the catalyst. The ethanol replaced the loss of octane when the tetraethyl lead was removed. Drought hits, ethanol is to blame. Have to blame someone. If more crude from N. Most know the answer, we are not the highest bidder.

Until we are willing to pay more, that crude, and refined products will go elsewhere. Read the footnotes at FuelEconomy. It is a test fuel. They also never test E85, no once. Most stations today sell E10, so the calculation changes immediately.

Most terminals are now selling a lower blend of E85, also lowering the differential. Congress allowed ethanol subsidies to expire in The ethanol industry did not get a dime, petroleum sector did. Any fuel can go through those dispensers, not just an ethanol blend.

Maybe you can help me understand something. It seems like the ethanol industry is more interested in getting an E15 mandate than they are in growing the E85 market. But if I was trying to grow the ethanol market, I would be putting a full court press on Midwestern governors to shift fuel taxes around and to do everything possible to make E85 more competitive.

Because if E85 becomes a more attractive option in the Midwest, the potential market there is times current ethanol production in the U.

And it would be beneficial to those Midwestern states. Your historical opinion of ethanol is known, so I am sure I am just getting baited. But, I will respond. I have no idea what has led you to believe the ethanol industry is pushing for an E15 mandate.

We have certainly opened more E85 stations than E15 since the fuel debuted. Incentives in the Midwest would do nothing to fix this issue and reducing fuel taxes would be a tough endeavor considering the state of our road infrastructure. Further, the fuel volume opportunities, along with the bulk of the vehicles, are not in the Midwest. The bulk of the new E85 stations are outside the Midwest and are proving to be very sustainable.

Yes, I am aware that the ethanol industry has a comic book view of my ethanol views. That was never clearer than when I was listed as 5 on a ethanol enemies list, with the reasons cited as opinions I have never actually held nor stated.

But my views a lot more objective than yours are. Whereas it is your job to push ethanol, it is not my job to oppose it. I oppose policies that I think are counterproductive. And this is where my opinion really starts to diverge from yours. The history of the ethanol industry has been one in which they try to force others to use their product. Now, if the ethanol industry is to be long-term sustainable, they should really focus closer to home where the costs to put ethanol at a station are a lot lower.

At this point in time, you exist because of the federal government. Note that I have made this argument for years. First environmental concerns not valued well at the checkout, advantage fossil fuel choice. Deep pockets of international corporations can easily eliminate small business competition as well as purchase more Capital Hill influence and convincing advertising. Deep pockets can afford more skeptical science per analysis of competition solutions as well as parley science support for purchases product.

Second I can see an advantage to maximizing effort within the ranks of ethanol producing states to showcase efficient use of their product, but that is going on as we post. The product must emerge from state boundaries to general public experience and benefit to gain any influence.

E15 is just a step away from mass market, why not push that solution? They throw out Libertarian ideals of free market, but quiet upon free market ideals of offering competitive choice at the pump. I think E15 is so dangerous to petrol, because the fuel would quickly be embraced per public scrutiny.

They would quickly discover higher octane better performing fuel, better air quality, no mpg loss, and cost savings. They would realize a dime cheaper fuel with mid grade fuel performance. They would ascertain per the experience, petrol benefactors just scare mongering and fooling them.

Oh, the ethanol sign per vendor contract sits on ground with competing signage for beer and cigarettes. If I remember correctly, that was a list created by outside views looking in, not from the ethanol industry itself. With the exception of Chicago, I know of no discussion of an E15 mandate.

In my opinion, which I think would be normal for most, is much different from us forcing someone to buy it. No different than if some station owner wants to offer E0, go for it. Ethanol is produced in more than half the states, so assume you mean the Midwest? I also assume it is just a coincidence that this is also where we find the lower volume of flex-fuel vehicles and fuel potential? I am sure Big Oil would love this idea too. If we should only use local production, the stay close to home model, what fuel should those states push?

Ethanol is also currently cheaper than gasoline in every state, which is historically true more often than not. Your idea is to raise gas prices for those outside the Midwest? Granted, there is ethanol production in both states, so maybe not a valid point, but they are not what most would consider the heart of ethanol country.

No damage to small engines. Consumers damage engine components due oxidative properties low ethanol content contends materials in components. Proper, high ethanol content, along reservoir drain and purge result clean for next use. English is very poor. Talk to any small engine repair shop for weed eaters and chainsaws to know what damage is. No problem here with those engines. Even the snow blower.

I mix gas by the 5 gallons, so I do use them a lot. About two cords of hardwood a year. If anything the engines run cleaner and smell less. They start easier and the out of season storage is a snap. I do nothing and they startup better than the old pure gasoline days. Lawn Boy had a terrible time with this and just about gave up the business. But, it is an easy excuse. RINs are provided at no cost to the entity that blends the renewable fuels with traditional fuels to create the ultimate marketplace fuel.

The only reason anyone would ever need to buy a RIN and this would be from another blender, not the government or taxpayers is if they are refusing to blend the renewable fuels. Robert, what do you mean RINs are provided at no cost to the blenders? I thought RINs are generated by the biofuel producer for every gallon of biofuel produced.

When the blenders buy biofuel, they are also buying the RIN. When the ethanol is blended with gasoline, the RIN is detached and can either be held for compliance or traded on a secondary market. You are correct that the biofuel producer generates and distributes, but not the economics. RINs are hard to explain, hopefully this helps.

The value of the RIN to the biofuel producer is zero, not factored into market pricing. The RIN only has value once blended, and to the blender.

That value is totally dependent on when it is sold and how many they have to sell. More volume to sell, more value. Only obligated parties gasoline producers and importers are required to turn-in RINs.

If they are an obligated party, they need to turn them into EPA for compliance and they have no value unless they blend beyond their obligation , no cash is received. The intent of the RIN is to encourage blending, and infrastructure development to support more blending. Why is the blender not an obligated party? So lets break it down in the supply chain.

The compliance life of a RIN is two years and they are told what their obligation is for that year. Biofuel producers produce a gallon and generate a RIN. It is available on the market. An obligated party can buy the RIN, or a non-obligated party. If they blend E85, they are capturing RINs that can therefore be sold to an obligated party. The intent is to encourage investment. Ok that is a little more clear. Investment into biofuel production? So the RIN is basically pure-profit to a non-obligated party.

But Kior is not a blender to my knowledge, only a producer. Also Kum and Go is a retail location that dispenses fuel. Larry, gas stations could, but not popular. Think of a gas station with blender pump that could purchase ethanol and E10 and accumulate RINs for higher blends. One would think petrol behavior per the obligated party regs would naturally progress the sale of more ethanol to eliminate the cost of conformance.

Not so upon reality. Is it per stubbornness? No, that human attribute seldom developed per higher need of wealth generation. So, what is petrol strategy? My first guess they feel comfortable within the position to defy regulations.

Probably per their political influence, wealth generation, and perceived value to public needs. They can hold steadfast to claim of inability to conform to regs and impose maximum negative advertising to value of competition. Their strategy is to trip up the time table and investment dollars from progressing the fuel. They reach out to willing accomplices per shared benefit to do so. In any event the RFS protects the competition from savages they can impose.

They would like to open the marketplace up to allow maximum international corporate power per bag of dirty tricks. Will this help the consumer? The public does need to wise up as they see the doors slowly closing around them.

It is very unlikely that they blend their own E10, but very likely they are the blender of record on their own E85, which they also use to create their E Investment from my perspective is in infrastructure. That would normally be retail, could be capital for more production, etc. But, only the blender receives this RIN value. Guessing the Kior statement was based on market opportunities and potential stock prices reflecting that, which would then encourage investment.

It was a subsidy provided to fuel blenders, not ethanol producers. But it has been replaced to a large extent by blender pump subsidies which are also paid to fuel blenders. Any thing paid or forgiven by the government regarding the use of ethanol as a fuel lowers the apparent cost to the consumer. Being as how there is no such thing as a free lunch the cost is paid by other means such as taxpayer money, raising the cost of foods such as corn and meats which depend on corn based feed and the consumer in terms of reduced fuel economy.

Price of corn is at or below when the RFS was implemented. If more ethanol raises corn prices, and then food, please explain? Only thing that is high in price now is food, simply because of greed. As for incentives for fuel blenders, it is more than just ethanol, they can offer any fuel they want, and why they are called multi-product dispensers.

Seen more E0, diesel, E85 and premium because of new dispenser technology. The market place determines the price of corn without subsidies. If you make gasoline out of methane, you have a renewable fuel that does not impact food cost and does not release formaldehyde when burned.

There is a commercial process for doing this but it is not widespread. There is also a commercial process for making gasoline from coal although coal is not a renewable source.

It is called the Fischer Tropsch process. Yes, USDA did provide some funding for retail fueling infrastructure that went to retail fuel station owners could also be oil companies of varying levels. Fossil fuels subsidize the federal government and the U. Shut them down, and our economy and government shut down.

They also subsidize the economies of every petro-state. Economics dictates that one cannot subsidize a primary energy source by definition. Energy is the currency of value creation that underpins the fiscal economy. Biofuels are subsidized by blending mandates and RINs that increase their price above their value. Ethanol sells at a premium to gasoline on an equal energy basis. DOE also publishes these relative prices quarterly.

The real first principle of subsidy is that only one of two interacting parties can be subsidized by the other — one takes a loss on a transaction to artificially prop up the return for the other. The ethanol industry can make no such claim. Fossil fuels energy subsizes our economy and fossil fuel margins subsidize our government. Comparing taxpayer investments is a challenge and depends on what is defined as a subsidy.

For example the pro petrol group will conflate agriculture with biofuel. You know the health of environment, citizen health, minimizing international warfare, job creation upon the dollar spent, domestic wealth production, small business growth, minimizing wealth concentration, rural job creation, farm income, stability of fuel costs, and most importantly; to stimulate competition and choice at the fuel pump.

Remember the national urgency to produce an alternative fuel as the Arabs and minor process glitches of petrol would work together to savage the consumer. Professor Metcalf economic analysis and what you post make a good case that any subsidy of petrol is a waste of taxpayer money. You forget that petrol has formulated a sub-par and cheaper blend stock for ethanol with the blessing of the EPA. Nothing wrong with that, except we need to inform the public that ethanol is required to bring the fuel up to standard grade, so ethanol should receive the credit for utilizing a cheaper grade of fuel and saving motorist money per every gallon of fuel.

First with the ability to motor on cheaper petrol fuel and second with the cheaper per gallon ethanol blend stock. Oh, wait it does as the ethanol oxygenate fuel charter works to decrease the typical gasoline fuel emissions. Oh, the octane boost of ethanol and the fast burn character of the fuel works to maximize plain gasoline efficiency within a typically engine and double than with the modern engines designed for higher octane fuels.

The purity of ethanol is extreme and easy for combustion engineers to work within. The same for controlling emissions. Petrol has hundreds of compounds, chemicals, and all with vary proportions.

Not an easy task to work within. Yeah, who needs subsidies when there are mandates that actually force your product into the market? Lets say mandate a change to ethanol fuel some six years out.

Place ethanol in the same circumstance that petrol fuel has historically enjoyed. No competition for years. Let the automotive, service sector and small engines tune and designs engines to maximize ethanol just like they did with petrol products. Let the process centers have a hundred years to improve cost and quality.

After that, sure, let the consumers decide. The country would be set on a course with a challenge of maximizing ethanol production. We may have to import some to start, but I think we would be flabbergasted upon the relatively quick production, low cost, and quality of the fuel and the gain from efficient engines running on the fuel. We would own the technology to do so and improve the economy with a valuable fuel supply and supplier of equipment.

By the way our petrol companies and resources still could be fully employed with the international markets. Suppliers still could be producing and exporting crude oil products. So, we would essentially be an energy supplier above the Arab influence owning two fuel markets. Forrest, your lies are tiresome. I am surprised Robert Rapier still tolerates your fountain of misinformation. Ethanol was around 5, years before gasoline.

The earliest internal combustion engines were designed to run on biofuels. All steam engines and most tractors were designed to be multi-fuel, burning whatever the farmer had at hand. The low-combustion engines of the Models T and A could run on ethanol. The historical fact is that gasoline arrived on the scene and immediately outcompeted ethanol — and kerosene, and steam engines, and batteries. There were showrooms for battery-powered cars before the gasoline engine was even invented.

Folks here have enough education in science and history and economics to be immune to your propaganda. I was shocked on the support of ethanol fuel and the wise use per the founding industry leaders of automotive. That often government stepped into make the fuel illegal or to expensive. First, most falsely think petrol saved the whales per providing a better fuel to illuminate lamps.

Same during Prohibition, whereas the competition got waylaid by crony capitalism. I do know the angst of the Great Depression farmer could have been mostly avoided if ethanol fuel choice rightly held on to its position. The history of ethanol is a history of being savaged by greed and wealth concentration of the few and powerful and the start of crony capitalism.

After all, your PhD thesis on the the environmental disaster of leaded gasoline reveals what a balanced view you have of the subject. Starting your authoritative history of ethanol in America in the s instead of Mesopotamia in 4, BC, and selectively omitting tons of history since really helps guide the reader to your foreordained conclusions. Of all of your omitted facts, I have one question you might be able to help me with.

Why did the Wright Brothers, way back in , when they decided to build their engine from scratch, choose to build a gasoline engine? I see you read the attachment for the earliest use and production of ethanol. Interesting that ethanol can be consumed, whereas gasoline is a poison to human health. Is there some magic within the tail pipe that makes the poison into healthy air? The Wrights engine was a crude engine even for the time. The crank case was aluminum a first.

No commercial engine available that could produce over 8 hp and weight less than It appears gasoline was able to do the job. Gasoline and hydrocarbons offers significantly superior energy density and power density versus ethanol and other alcohols.

Same advantage to cars, trucks, trains, ships, and rockets. The advantage is large enough that it was worth it to the Wright Brothers to add to the chore of designing and building a new aircraft, the additional challenge of designing and building a new engine from scratch. And they beat the specs by generating 12 hp out of lb.

People who understand physics and chemistry made America great. People who rewrite history and facts to suit their skewed worldviews and broadcast it as truth tear us all down.

I bet the Energy Department has a good understanding of superior fuels. Did you read they have a BETO strategic plan to facilitate bio fuel development? They plan to become a force to speed the development and provide a strong foundation of accurate communication.

The idea is educate the public upon truth and science of the needs and benefits of bio fuel. This should stop the naysayers and kill the propagandist that attempt to thwart such actions. More of a continuous slow growth plan to ensure no miss steps and success. It transforms hydrocarbons and air into water vapor and CO2 gas and lots of heat and pressure energy to move pistons and do useful work.

Most of us learned about it in high school. How about an accurate chemical equation of the entire process. Of course that can be accomplished, because no one knows for sure the full spectrum of chemicals involved. First the variations of chemical makeup of the fuel and the compounding effect of all the engine operating parameters. Then the wear and failure of the system and components add to the complexity. Manufactures only guarantee a small portion of emissions will be controlled to acceptable limits for a specific lifetime of the vehicle.

All bets are off on old vehicles. Small engine manufactures rate conformance by the hour. The EPA inspected emissions mostly about the basics within environmental harm and not long term human health. We just discovered the diesel 2. Why are cities looking to increase ethanol blends as an improvement? Yes, but the government must support the military according to a constitutional mandate.

We have plenty of oil if the government would just get out of the way, we would not have to import. Those same anti nuke people wring their hands that we are polluting with fossil fuels. The issues regarding sustainable energy, climate change, and environmental pollution have been obfuscated by political agenda, misinformation and outright lies. This is a globalist agenda and there is very little science involved.

BTW CO2 is not a pollutant and there is no evidence that it contributes to warmer temperatures as it produces no energy. The military secures our dependence on Walmart and iPhones and bananas more than it secures our dependence on oil. We could easily satisfy all our oil needs with North American oil.

We import from the gulf and OPEC simply because it is cheaper. Retail ethanol has never been cheaper than gasoline since DOE has been keeping records in The DOE tracks the retail prices and corrects them for equal energy content in table 3 of this quarterly publication http: The best comparison of retail products is E10 gasoline to E You can go look up historical prices as far back as It fails on volatility, energy density, lubricity, electrical conductivity, water affinity, corrosivity, stability, biological fouling, and other criteria.

As an additive it also increases the water and soil contamination potential of gasoline, the same as MTBE did. The EPA even had to give it a waiver for violating one of their own pollution limits Reid vapor pressure. It is a beverage additive, not a fuel additive. It does not belong in any gasoline station or fuel tank. First btu rating is but one measure of fuel worth. Notice we do not use high btu bituminous for fuel. Nor has high btu diesel replaced gasoline.

The fact that ethanol is diluted with liquid oxygen is a good thing as it makes combustion more efficient, cleaner, and promotes high torque efficient engines with less displacement. Meaning a smaller lighter engine as compared to the petrol fueled engine. Cummings E85 engine was half the size of the diesel engine of comparable torque and operated on equivalent fuel cost per mile.

It bested the gasoline engine comparison, even on a MPG measure. So, how did a lower BTU fuel beat plain gasoline? Ethanol has better fuel character that allows the design of a more efficient engine. This is truly the measure of a good fuel. All the other data you post is basically rating ethanol in sub par position, either with engines designed for another fuel or with test data gamed per the petrol engineered test fuel that everyone knows was formulated to purposely put ethanol at a disadvantage.

A test fuel that has no commercial equivalent. Note, that the Cummings E85 engine met EPA regs with simple low cost converter as compared to the needed very expensive diesel pollution control equipment. I do notice since E10 fuel water problems have vanished. The boating industry had a horrible time with petrol and conked out boats with a water slug within fuel.

The solution would be to find the water slug and drain then pet ethanol fuel in the tank. That was a myth way back and never substantiated. Petrol does promote a varnish and gunk over time, but that is usually a demerit in fuel quality.

Ethanol makes an excellent two cycle fuel given the need for improved oxygen breathing and lower metal part temperatures given the engine must be tuned properly for the fuel. The vapor pressure, again, is just a measure of not using enough ethanol. Meaning ethanol can be utilized to both increase vapor pressure need such as in cold climates and used to decrease vapor pressure during summer season.

This is actually a good thing. Also, one must understand the excellent fuel character of ethanol is most valuable to handicap gasoline. It can give gasoline a boost in combustion efficiency. I did notice that the Ford 1L Ecoboost engine can maximize the E15 benefit and does not lose any MPG as compared to conventional plain gasoline. This is the future of modern high efficient engines that need more ethanol in the mix. This is a good thing for petrol, the consumer, and the environment.

Also there is a lot of small motor companies that require you to use ethanol free gas or they will not warranty them and in the old muscle cars and such as 60s and early 70s you run that stuff in them you will get engine damage so you have to run regular unleaded and add stuff in it to take care of it or redo a lot to motor and fuel system.

And if you run unleaded gas in a 60s or early 70s car, you had better replace the valves and valve seats. The tetraethyl lead protected the older valves and seats from burning. No joke but that is not the reason lead was put in gasoline it was put in because it was a cheap way to raise the octane in gas and now you can buy stuff to go in unleaded gas just like AMACO sold to use in there Gold brand gas that was a high test unleaded gas from the 60,s.

There was another reason ethanol was added that most are not aware of and that is that it reduced the vapor pressure of gasoline in the tank. The lead was taken out due to contamination of the catalyst. The alcohol was supposed to replace the lost octane. Yes, comparing low sales of E85 to low sales of ethanol free gas is a bit deceptive, meaning there both niche markets. The E85 is valuable per the ranking of alternative fuel and not just a blend agent.

Flex fuel owners have an option when the crude oil supply goes haywire. Also, the politics of EPA, petrol, ethanol, and auto manufacturers is very interesting to watch.

Each player wants government to empower their side. Auto manufactures want big CAFE credits for flex fuel production to offset gas guzzlers as this class of car most popular to Flex Fuel. EPA upset upon the trick and pulling away credits. Also, manufacturers want subsidy for the production of Flex Fuel vehicles, because they can. Their is no need for this certification other than to subsidize government agency. My response to this comment can be found here.

Farmers grow what they think they can make money growing. The ethanol subsidies have driven many Midwest farmers to grow more corn, leaving less cropland for other staples. Overproduction this year is because of ideal weather. After some really dry years and some so-so years, weather was ideal throughout the Midwest. Ironically, production was so good that the market price for corn is below production cost this year. I do not fear ethanol nor harbor ill will towards environmentalists.

Ethanol is added to gasoline has only one benefit. Therefore adding ethanol to gasoline will reduce mileage.

Need to Lose Weight?