We recently purchased a 1999 Dodge Grand Caravan. It is perfectly functional and Bethany loves it. Now I love it, too. Why? It runs on E85 fuel. 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline. It is made from good old Missouri corn, so it supports the local economy instead of terrorists. It burns cleaner than gas, so it makes less pollution. And oh yeah- it costs 50 cents per gallon less than gas!!! When everyone else is paying three bucks a gallon for gas, we will be spending about $10 less per fill up.
Almost all domestic car manufacturers and several foreign automakers are producing vehicles that can run on E85. I urge everyone to get one when it comes time to buy your next car or truck. Check out E85Fuel.com for more info. The sooner we can tell Iran and their oil cartel buddies that we won't be giving them another dime for their precious oil the better.
Now if only they made an E85 conversion kit for the cars we already own... I can't be expected to part with my 1996 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor can I?!
3 comments:
Do you see any change in MPG on the ethanol vs. gas? I was always told that the difference in price for fuel was always eaten up in poor fuel economy. Doesn't matter to me anyway. It will be another 5 - 10 years before Hannibal gets progressive enough to even offer E85.
blade- the E85 folks say that you'll get about 10% less MPG but the fuel is about 20% cheaper, so you still come out ahead. We filled up yesterday for $2.35 per gallon for 100 octane fuel. The guy next to us spent $2.89 per gallon on 85 octane unleaded.
In Columbia, it is Breaktime(owned by MFA Oil) Convienence Stores that have E85. Hannibal, with its local Missouri Farmers Association should have E85 within a couple years. There are grants and financial assistance for gas stations willing to offer the product.
The U.S. gets the majority of its oil from Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from- not to mention bin Laden), Venezuela (whose dictator is a close ally of the other oil cartel nations), and Iran (the biggest threat to the western world). We need ethanol NOW- not 5 to 10 years from now.
Jagua- I found this written on the net today. I'm not in favor of overthrowing his government or anything. I AM in favor of finding an alternative to our dependence on foreign oil.
The following was found on this website: http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604240945
Today we keep applying these terms in a very loose and inaccurate manner. Many have defined Saddam Hussein as a Leftist when, in fact, he tried to be a monarch in Iraq, therefore a Rightist in the original sense. Václav Havel was termed a Rightist because he opposed the Communist Party in his native Czechoslovakia but the truth is that he was the symbol of freedom against the pretensions of absolute (monarchic) power attempted by the communists.
So, what is in a name? Hugo Chávez in Venezuela has been defined as a Leftist leader. And yet, he behaves like a monarch in times when monarchy is out of fashion. He favors extreme centralization of authority, a trademark of dictators. He promotes the exclusion of the middle class and of the political dissenters, while claiming to speak for the poor and promoting a policy of handouts to keep them contented (the strategy followed by populist demagogue Juan Perón in Argentina or abusive military ruler Velasco Alvarado in Peru). These are all fascist techniques, in the manner of Italy's Benito Mussolini, a well-known representative of the extreme, totalitarian Right. Chávez has exercised total political control in the country, a style closer to Stalin's when ruling over the collapsed Soviet Union than to the liberal democracies of the West.
This style of Chávez is, of course, not "Left" but "Right." Chávez has gone as far as trying to justify the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City, arguing that this was the result of American crimes elsewhere. In taking this stance, he aligned himself with Rightist extremists such as Hebe de Bonafini of Argentina and the American Nazi Party.
This matter of political labels would have no real significance except that there is new enthusiasm for Chávez on the part of the U.S. "Left," those thousands of people who went to pick coffee for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, collected money for Fidel Castro or hate George Bush, and who candidly believe that Chávez represents the new hope of the oppressed and the poor in the Western hemisphere. The Venezuelan Embassy in Washington is recruiting these old and young hippies in droves, to serve as the shock troops of what Chávez sees as an "invasion" of the U.S., by his revolutionary ideological forces. Chávez means to use all the organizations ripe to be harvested: the afro-American groups that feel they are fighting racism in Venezuela (while actually promoting it), the owners of apartment buildings in Boston and other U.S. cities where Chávez is distributing subsidized oil (at the expense of the Venezuelan poor), the so-called Bolivarian Circles subsidized heavily with our Venezuelan money and, generally, all the mercenaries he can find.
I am sure that the U.S. flower children that are now paying Global Exchange to visit Venezuela would be shocked to hear that they are supporting a Rightist political leader. But this is what is happening. Hugo Chávez is in the same league with Mussolini, Perón, Velasco Alvarado, Mugabe, Castro, Gaddafi, Kim Il-sung and Hussein. Some of these leaders started out as radical reformers but all have ended up as tyrants, despots and oppressors of their people.
The innocent flower children have been had, once more.
Post a Comment