Gore: On second thought, I was just pandering to the farm vote on ethanol

posted at 11:30 am on November 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Too often, Americans punish politicians for reversing their previous and sometimes obviously wrong positions on policy.  They label such politicians as flip-floppers, and even when these officeholders switch to their preferred policy, some continue to castigate them and warn of their unreliability.   But sometimes, well, those reversals can seem just a little too convenient — especially when the politician in question admits that he took the first stance just to curry votes.  Al Gore makes the obvious just a little too explicit in his sudden reversal on ethanol subsidies:

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was “not a good policy”, weeks before tax credits are up for renewal. …

“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.["]

So far, so good.  Ethanol as a replacement or supplement for gasoline was a mistake, especially in the massive government subsidies spent on the effort. Ethanol only has two-thirds of the potential energy as gasoline, is harder to transport, and winds up being more expensive.  Worse, as Gore admits now, the subsidies for ethanol have sparked a price war for a food staple as we shove legitimate food into our gas tanks.  It makes starvation worse by making food too expensive, and Gore now admits that “the competition with food prices is real.”

Why, then, did Gore spend most of the last two decades pushing for ethanol subsidies?  It wasn’t because he was trying to help humanity:

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

In other words, Gore wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about ethanol; he was just particularly enthusiastic about Gore.  Thanks to pressure from Gore and others with “a certain fondness” for playing prairie politics over common sense, the US spent almost $8 billion subsidizing ethanol in just the last year.  Slate reported in 2005 that between 1995 and 2003, ethanol subsidies went over $37 billion in the US, most of which took place in the Clinton/Gore administration.

Gore now says he supports second-generation ethanol to avoid using food, instead using wood, waste fiber, and grass.  But the same Slate report shows that these technologies actually perform worse than corn for ethanol:

David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.

In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America’s total energy consumption, not decrease it.

Ethanol production won’t dent the US demand for fuel.  At best, it nibbles around the edges.  But, given Gore’s track record on his endorsements, perhaps he’s looking for another area for investment in Al Gore Inc.

Update: On that note, here’s this from commenter Selias:

Google avaiation biofuels and algae. Then Google Al Gore’s investment into biofuel companies like Abengoa.

Then read this article last week in The Hill, written by none other than Abengoa VP, Christopher G. Standlee:

America needs new investment: In the next generation of biofuels

Then ponder the Federal lands and wetlands bonanza buy-ups in recent years, even pointed out by our very own Michelle Malkin.

Why would the progressive Federal gov’t need so much land? With quotes like this:

The Department of Energy says algae grown on a 15,000-square-mile area, about the size of Maryland, could theoretically meet the nation’s oil needs.

…it’s easy to put this puzzle together.

It’s all about Al Gore Inc.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Pathetic sure, but still a step ahead of Pawlenty, who apparently is still in the pandering stage.

MNHawk on November 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM

To think that this IDIOT was about 1000 votes away from being President…

Khun Joe on November 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Tell you what, Goracle! When you have the good grace and decency to return that Nobel prize for promulagating what has now proven to be complete junk science, then I will believe you.

Until then, you are as full of gas as a farting cow in the field.

pilamaye on November 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM

A political solution to a political problem.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Ethanol is a great replacement for gasoline, so long as there’s no gasoline around. Besides, it still generates CO2, and since you need more to get where you’re going, you’re going to end up putting more CO2 into the air than if you were burning a tank of gasoline.

But it should not be surprising Gore was doing this for votes. The Green Jobs canard is just as bad– dump existing energy technologies for technologies that are “renewable” but generate far less energy and have serious reliability problems. As for the jobs the “green sector” creates? As we’ve seen, the jobs only exist so long as the government pumps money into green technology– they’re just not competitive with existing energy markets.

But it’s all good intentions, right? Wreck the economy but feel good about it, that’s the Environut way…

Nethicus on November 22, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I like Gore better when he was hiding under a rock… after the “Happy Ending” massage scandal, and the cooked-lab results AGW scandal (downgraded from “global warming” to cover-all-bets “climate change.”)

How’s the Carbon Footprint these days, Al?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

VastRightWingConspirator on November 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

It was probably this 2007 article by a famous government official that made Al rethink his position on using food crops for energy production.

jon1979 on November 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM

This from the one person responsible for the division in this the USA. His disgraceful actions over the election results in Florida, were never for the good of the country, much as this ethanol dust up.

Wade on November 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Of course it’s a scam. A leader in the industry told me ethanol isn’t feasible until gas rises to $10 a gallon. And if you want to go the full Gore demagougic route, we can say that meanwhile we’re driving up food prices and starving the world’s poor. Gore starved children because of politics.

Paul-Cincy on November 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

as we shove legitimate food into our gas tanks. It makes starvation worse by making food too expensive, and Gore now admits that “the competition with food prices is real.”

Only a suicidal society uses its food source for fuel.

mankai on November 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Hey Al, -look over there, -chocolates!!

slickwillie2001 on November 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

The article conveniently avoids the worldwide shortage of grain leading to food riots, violent deaths, and starvation.

All thanks to Al Gore’s “bad policy in pursuit of votes”.

BobMbx on November 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!”

Dopenstrange on November 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

…Gore now admits that “the competition with food prices is real.”

This issue was raised in the 1970s, at the beginning of this ethanol-from-corn madness.

If you want fuel alcohol, build a methanol plant at the mouth of a coal mine. This, too, was pointed out by sensible scientists and engineers in the 1970s.

Owen Glendower on November 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Gore fesses up. He imagines 67 masseuses await him in heaven.

petefrt on November 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

But give Al credit — everytime he opens his mouth, he produces a lot of fertilizer…

Dopenstrange on November 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Wait wait wait! Burning food is….bad?

Can I get consensus on that?

mudskipper on November 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Al Gore was wrong about ethanol, and admits that he went along with it to help moneyed special interests. But we’re still supposed to believe Global Warming is a major threat to Planet Earth? Or to humanity- it’s never clear which one we’re supposed to be scared for.

hawksruleva on November 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa

Iowa farmers release Gore’s chakra.

darwin on November 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Wait wait wait! Burning food is….bad?

Can I get consensus on that?

mudskipper on November 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

From the ouija board, FDR declares that destroying food helps control prices.

hawksruleva on November 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Tell you what, Goracle! When you have the good grace and decency to return that Nobel prize for promulagating what has now proven to be complete junk science, then I will believe you. . . .

pilamaye on November 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Also the millions and millions he made from the carbon credits scam. And that Academy Award.

Sowell Disciple on November 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Talk about a gas bag.

Hummer53 on November 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Stop all subsidies. Ethanol. Sugar. Pineapple. Yes, and even Milk. All these do is distort the marketplace. No more paying farmers to not farm. Stop it. Stop it.

Dandapani on November 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

So, he admits he’s a whore?

What a surprise. Why does anyone listen to this wanker?

HBowmanMD on November 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Would it be indelicate of me to point out that the U.S. is now exporting record amounts of U.S.-taxpayer-subsidized-for-the-purpose-of-reducing-our-dependence-on-foreign-oil ethanol?

Mr. Pickles on November 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

“Ethanol production won’t dent the US demand for fuel. At best, it nibbles around the edges.”
Hey, if ethanol is a net energy loser, government subsidy of it will accelerate the US demand for fuel.

Ira on November 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

John Thune, possible Presidential candidate … unavailable for comment.

trs on November 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I have personal experience with the results of this. The quality of food available to NGOs in Africa went into the toilet (and prices through the roof) in the last several years, simply because that grain is not available. I dropped nearly $500 to subsidize improvement in basic foodstuffs available to our orphans in Africa for 3 months; they simply can’t keep living on milk-thin maize porridge 6 days a week.

michaelo on November 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

But, given Gore’s track record on his endorsements, perhaps he’s looking for another area for investment in Al Gore Inc.

Duh…

The hidden agenda is in the 2nd to last paragraph of Reuters article:

“I do think second and third generation that don’t compete with food prices will play an increasing role, certainly with aviation fuels.”

Google avaiation biofuels and algae. Then Google Al Gore’s investment into biofuel companies like Abengoa.

Then read this article last week in The Hill, written by none other than Abengoa VP, Christopher G. Standlee:

America needs new investment: In the next generation of biofuels

Then ponder the Federal lands and wetlands bonanza buy-ups in recent years, even pointed out by our very own Michelle Malkin.

Why would the progressive Federal gov’t need so much land? With quotes like this:

The Department of Energy says algae grown on a 15,000-square-mile area, about the size of Maryland, could theoretically meet the nation’s oil needs.

…it’s easy to put this puzzle together.

selias on November 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Can any of our Democrat posters here tell us why they voted for this clown for President in 2000?

Del Dolemonte on November 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Hey Al, -look over there, -chocolates!!

slickwillie2001 on November 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I’m sure his fave is the candy form known as “bark”. Al’s being a tree and all…

Del Dolemonte on November 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM

In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields,

Gore gets himself off the hook here, since ethanol from corn only costs 29% more energy than it produces, and switch grass (recommended by BOOOOOOOSH) costs 55% more.

Ethanol is a great replacement for gasoline, so long as there’s no gasoline around. Besides, it still generates CO2, and since you need more to get where you’re going, you’re going to end up putting more CO2 into the air than if you were burning a tank of gasoline.

If gasoline is considered to be pure octane, the CO2 yield per million BTUs of heating value of gasoline is within 1% of the CO2 yield per million BTUs of ethanol. So that ANY fossil fuel burned to plant and harvest ANY plant that eventually yields ethanol adds to total CO2 emissions to the air. Hey Goracle, ethanol is bad for Global Warming!

It’s true that fossil fuels are needed to plant and harvest corn anyway. But we might as well eat the corn, or do a good deed and export it to starving children overseas.

Steve Z on November 22, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Maybe they could import Ethanol from Brazil. Which is much more potent.

Oh wait, that would make too much sense.

Bigbullets on November 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Worse, as Gore admits now, the subsidies for ethanol have sparked a price war for a food staple as we shove legitimate food into our gas tanks.

You do not use food grade corn to produce ethanol. You use field corn. Different plants. Now, the acres planted in one type vs the other might change due to where someone believes the market may be at the end of the growing season. But that is true of every crop. If all your neighbors are planting one particular crop, it might be in your best interest to plant something else.

Stegall Tx on November 22, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Doesn’t this loser have a massueuse to harrass?

capejasmine on November 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM

otherwise known as lying.

How is that CCX investment working out for you?

tarpon on November 22, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Follow the money…….and it will lead to The Goracle.

GarandFan on November 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM

This is what is known as rent-seeking behavior. And it is the raison d’etre of much of professional washington.

JohnGalt23 on November 22, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Hey, obama, has algore made enough money yet? The jerk belongs in jail for fraud.

tinkerthinker on November 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

You do not use food grade corn to produce ethanol. You use field corn…..

Stegall Tx on November 22, 2010 at 12:12 PM

True, BUT. What you call food grade corn is what I call sweet corn. The wonderful stuff you get at the farmer’s market and eat off of the cob, or the stuff in the cans is sweet corn. However, people do consume field corn. Try corn flakes and corn meal as two examples. Corn meal is used in your salsa chips and many other products. Field corn is also consumed through the meat of animals. Poultry, hogs, dairy cattle and milk cows are all fed a ration that includes corn as the major portion of their diet. Raise the price of corn and you raise the price of the input used for these other food sources. Dairy, eggs, and meat products all cost more to produce because of this diversion of corn into ethanol.

CBP on November 22, 2010 at 12:32 PM

d’oh!

cmsinaz on November 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Stegall Tx on November 22, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Good reminder, -but corn can also be used for both. It can be used first for Ethanol production, after which the proteins and oils which are not consumed in the production of Ethanol, can be processed into cattle feed.

I’ve never seen the arithmetic on that dual process, and whether it’s a complete double win or not.

slickwillie2001 on November 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM

THERE IS ONLY ONE WORD FOR THIS:

CORRUPTION!

at the expense of the taxpayers!

TheAlamos on November 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I understand that this piece is about pandering, but Ed trots out his anti-biofuel stance again and that bothers me.

Its perfectly rational to invest hundres of billions on weapon systems that never get produced or would be completely worthless when the Saudis cut off our oil, but 37 billion over 20 years spent to spur on development of an important National Security objective is outrageous. Is corn-based biofuel useful right now? Nope. Does it start to create a market? Yep. It also is a prerequisite to the next level of technology that is closer to being market based.

To provide for the National Defense we need fuel that is controllable. We do not control our fuel source now, nor can we ever control it without full scale war of conquest. This means to me that we need to fuel our National Defense in some new way and biofuel seems like a good investment toward that important requirement.

Sinner on November 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Each weekend we get to listen to Ed Wallace on local radio.
He’s always called the ethanol idea a scam.
Ed Wallace, Businessweek
Google for even more, more recent articles.

pambi on November 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

slickwillie2001 ,

Around 30% of field corn input to a biofuel reactor comes out of the process as distiller’s grain, a high protein animal feed.

Sinner on November 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Around 30% of field corn input to a biofuel reactor comes out of the process as distiller’s grain, a high protein animal feed.

Sinner on November 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Distillers grain is a good supplement to feed, but cannot replace the bulk of the mix you use in making the grain ration. I worked on a dairy farm for several years and would put several hundred pounds of distillers grain, as well as soybean meal into the grinder-mixer. But probably 85%of the total volume of the grain ration was corn. Pure distillers would be too rich and make the animals sick. The distillers grain that we used probably came from the process of making alcohol, so it should be a similar product.

CBP on November 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM

This is why I don’t like the primaries beginning in Iowa. They should be switched around and not always in the same order we’ve grown accustomed to. It gives those farmers and the ethanol lobby way too much power, and the American people have been screwed in the process.

Buy Danish on November 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM

This means to me that we need to fuel our National Defense in some new way and biofuel seems like a good investment toward that important requirement.

Sinner on November 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Biofuel is only a good investment if the numbers work. And the numbers don’t work when that fuel is a net energy sink. No amount of government subsidies will reverse the laws of thermodynamics.

Better: Use nuclear power. If you need fuel, you use nuclear power to process coal into synthetic fuel.

ZenDraken on November 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM

CBP,

Thats good info, thanks.

I didn’t mean to imply that the output would be a “pure” feed, but that 30% of the input would find its way into the stomachs of livestock. This is something the “food vs. fuel” argument never seems to acknowledge.

Sinner on November 22, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Dare I say it, but what about the inevitable destruction of delicate ecosystems of wetlands???

My sister can’t even blow fallen autumn leaves into the marshy wetlands behind her property…because of disruptions of all the amoebic and larger critters who will perish if she upsets the delicate balance. Yet the government can buy up gazillions of protected acres of wetlands to grow algae. What imbalance will be created with all this algae? Bet it gives off a ton of carbon!
Systems effects, anyone?

The Central valley of California’s farming industry was brought to a standstill (enjoying higher produce prices yet?) by the California concern for the lowly snail darter, actually not much more than any other endangered marsh critter, and its importance in the food chain, right?…

Maybe we should cut to the chase and just drill for oil, huh?

marybel on November 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM

How much octane is in algae slime?

Akzed on November 22, 2010 at 2:31 PM

To provide for the National Defense we need fuel that is controllable. We do not control our fuel source now, nor can we ever control it without full scale war of conquest. This means to me that we need to fuel our National Defense in some new way like drilling for oil on our own land to fulfill and biofuel seems like a good investment toward that important requirement. Sinner on November 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Akzed on November 22, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Biofuel is only a good investment if the numbers work. And the numbers don’t work when that fuel is a net energy sink. No amount of government subsidies will reverse the laws of thermodynamics.

Better: Use nuclear power. If you need fuel, you use nuclear power to process coal into synthetic fuel.

ZenDraken on November 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM

We can’t lump all biofuels in with corn ethanol. If you look at similar efficiency figures for diesel from vegetable oil ie from soy as is the chosen path in Europe, there’s no question that it is a productive process. The odd ‘burning food’ moral concern remains of course.

Agree of course that nuclear is the only way to go, and nuclear fusion longterm.

slickwillie2001 on November 22, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Oh wait kids…it gets even better.

CPT. Charles on November 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Politicians make terrible business decisions because they invest your money for votes, not a financial return.

RJL on November 22, 2010 at 3:30 PM

The shame of it is that as Al Gore got around to admitting his ethanol douchebaggery, his audience was already in REM sleep for over an hour.

wildweasel on November 22, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Now watch the left ignore this confession and continue to trumpet biofuels as the answer to everything.

R. Waher on November 22, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Drilling here and drilling now is a great start, I agree. Open ANWR, easy call for me. Figure out the Oil Shale, great! Coal liquefaction, bring it on!

There is also room for biofuel in that mix, which may be the long term best best (maybe not, but algae is my best bet)

Sinner on November 22, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Al Gore’s cheese continues to slip off the cracker.

kens on November 22, 2010 at 4:18 PM

For the last two or three years here in Oregon, all of the gasoline has 10% ethanol added. When the switch to 10% ethanol first took place, my Toyota’s MPG dropped 10% (plus some of the engine’s performance.

Toyota service confirmed that this is the case with the ethanol mix.

So, I’m using 10% more PETROLEUM to go the same amount miles on a tank of gas that contains ethanol.

Add that to the amount of BTU’s required to grow the corn, ship and process it, and it is a purely stupid energy solution.

I’m going to talk to my Senator Wyden about this.

Pazman on November 22, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Hemp diesel, hemp fabric, hemp paper. Up yours W R Hearst!

riverrat10k on November 22, 2010 at 4:57 PM

The Department of Energy says algae grown on a 15,000-square-mile area, about the size of Maryland, could theoretically meet the nation’s oil needs.

…it’s easy to put this puzzle together.

Yep, and I’ve been seeing lots of infomercials lately regarding algae growth and biofuels.

This is just Gore getting ready to suck another Bilion out of an industry supported by the tax payer.

azkenreid on November 22, 2010 at 4:57 PM

MTBE was replaced with 10% ethanol in gas because it was polluting the underground water supplies because of gas station tank leaks. What is seemly ignored is that the corn used to produce ethanol can be used for cattle feed (or for humans food if allowed) and what was used for cattle feed can be used for human consumption. The problem is mainly distribution/transportation. But get rid of the tax credits and shift to non-human food organics to produce it.

amr on November 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Another evil of the Vast Enviro-Industry Ethanol Conspiracy is the harmful, damaging effect of ethanol on marine outboard engines.

Ethanol attracts water. Water vapor in air enters vented fuel tanks and winds up sequestered in the gasoline/ethanol mix, causing massive damage and corrosion to two-stroke and four-stroke engines. Ethanol is also a solvent – that means it melts & dissolves the insides of rubber fuel hoses, creating a viscous slurry of goo that flows downstream into engine fuel systems.

The costs of these damages have been well-documented and its now running into the hundreds of millions. But the Enviro Industry care about recreational & commercial boaters. After all “ethanol is good and it’s All For The Children(tm)”

CatchAll on November 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM

amr on November 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM

It’s the circle of life Simba.

Riddle me this…what is the favorite thing progressives love doing?

Answer: creating a problem, then providing the solution.

All that ethanol “helping seepage,” is actually creating a larger ecological disaster: Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production

Want to know what is ironic, I mean aside from people who claim they’re helping the environment actually causing bigger problems, is the fact that the same Midwest Research Institute which helped solve the bombs-to-fertilizer problem back after WWII…is the same Midwest Research Institute now running all of the nation’s National Renewable Energy Laboratories (i.e. algae biofuel).

It’s just so neat how things just work out for Al Gore and his kind. Push corn ethanol on the public until blue in the face, knowing full well it’s not the best energy producing biomass. Create food shortages around the globe and cause larger dead zones from run-off from over subsidized corn ethanol farming in the Gulf of Mexico…Chesapeake Bay…Great Lakes…Everglades…Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta…etc. Then, save the day with your new show pony, algae biofuel!

Bravo!

selias on November 22, 2010 at 10:11 PM

So much BS and bad info about ethanol. Much of the energy used to grow corn is natural gas. Which is very tough to use in a car. The amount of energy from oil to produce ethanol is about 1/7 of the energy produced from corn.

After you produce the ethanol, you have about 18 pounds of protein left from the original 56 lbs of corn. Most of the world is short on protein, not carbohydrates. So it can be shipped anywhere in the world, for a lot less energy than shipping whole corn.

I’d much rather have ethanol going into the environment than MTBE.

The biggest problem is flex-fueled cars and light trucks. The term flex-fuel means the engine can run on regular 87 octane gas which requires low compression ratios. You get higher efficiency with high compression engines, which requires 100+ octane fuels, which E85 fuel is.

Perhaps the most important thing is to keep the money in the States instead of shipping it overseas, though with the huge arms deals with Saudi’s, we will get some back.

Highplains on November 23, 2010 at 2:00 AM

The Con Man of the Century confesses to his con, and yet will still be able to find suckers to milk.

RebeccaH on November 23, 2010 at 11:45 AM