I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
all of the above?


I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
with the HFCS version.


--Lia

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:33:38 -0400, Julia Altshuler
> wrote:

>I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
>over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
>wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
>expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
>all of the above?
>
>
>I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
>different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
>Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
>there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
>national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
>with the HFCS version.
>
>
>--Lia
HFCS is cheaper and more available. Corn.

aloha,
beans
roast beans to kona to email
farmers of Pure Kona

wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:33:38 -0400, Julia Altshuler
> > wrote:
>
> >I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> >over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> >wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> >expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> >all of the above?
> >
> >
> >I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> >different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> >Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> >there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> >national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> >with the HFCS version.
> >
> >
> >--Lia
> HFCS is cheaper and more available. Corn.

Yep, but I wonder what the whole ethanol scam will do to the price
point.

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> all of the above?
>
>
> I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> with the HFCS version.
>
>
> --Lia

HFCS is much cheaper than cane sugar, some news stories I've read
indicate that it may not stay that way as the demand for corn
increases for use in biofuels.

Jessica

Jessica V. wrote:
>
> Julia Altshuler wrote:
> > I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> > over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> > wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> > expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> > all of the above?
> >
> >
> > I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> > different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> > Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> > there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> > national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> > with the HFCS version.
> >
> >
> > --Lia
>
> HFCS is much cheaper than cane sugar, some news stories I've read
> indicate that it may not stay that way as the demand for corn
> increases for use in biofuels.
>
> Jessica

The demand for corn to use as biofuels is also causing the prices for
wheat and other grains to increase too. The reason is that farmers
aren't growing as much of those grains as they previously did since
they're growing corn instead. At least that's something I heard just
this past week on national evening news.

Sky
--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> all of the above?
>
>
> I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> with the HFCS version.
>
>
> --Lia
>


Protective tariffs and price supports on sugar in the US make HFCS a lot
cheaper.

BTW, High fructose corn syrup has about the same sugars composition as
honey. HFCS is evil, and honey is wholesome and good, and they are
basically the same thing.

(that ought to stir things up a bit)

Bob

Julia Altshuler said...

> I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> all of the above?
>
>
> I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> with the HFCS version.
>
>
> --Lia


Lia,

I don't remember where I read it or heard it but aside from being a super
sweetener, HFCS was genetically designed to block appetite receptors in the
brain that tell you when your full. So you'll keep eating more product than
you would normally. The more you eat, the more you'll buy more often. Or so
goes the conspiracy...

Processed food companies don't care about your heath, just your money.

Andy

In article >,
says...
> I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> all of the above?
>
>
> I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> with the HFCS version.
>
>
> --Lia
>
>

High Fructose Corn Syrup is cheaper than sugar.

The reason that sugar is so expensive is because of protective tarrifs
designed to protect the U.S. sugar producing industry.

But I imagine that very same sugar industry must be hurting because so
many things have transitioned to HFCS. Even wheat bread has HFCS in it
now.

And they're even thinking of switching candy bars over to it too.

Andy wrote:
>
> I don't remember where I read it or heard it but aside from being a
> super sweetener, HFCS was genetically designed to block appetite
> receptors in the brain that tell you when your full. So you'll keep
> eating more product than you would normally. The more you eat,
> the more you'll buy more often. Or so goes the conspiracy...

Quoting from:
http://www.infomercialwatch.org/tran/trudeau.shtml

TRUDEAU: Well, what's occurring right now is there
are ingredients being put in the food for one reason.

MATTHEWS: What's that?

TRUDEAU: To make you hungry or to make you addicted
to the product, or to make you fat. In other words,
there are certain ingredients being put into the food
today on purpose to make people fat because fat people
eat more food. This is sad but it's absolutely true.
[Notice that Trudeau doesn't identify any of them.]
Why is every other country in the world has lower
obesity levels than America? Why are Americans
blowing up?

Julia Altshuler wrote:
>
> I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some
> or all of the above?

The only reason HFCS is used at all is that there are price
supports for sugar in the U.S. We pay about 2 to 4 times
the world price for sugar. High-fructose corn syrup is
exempt from the price supports, so most soft drinks are
made with HFCS rather than sucrose.

Some products, like candy, cannot substitute HFCS for
sucrose, so many candy companies have moved from the
U.S. to Canada or Mexico.

Unfortunately, we have two powerful lobbies maintaining
this situation. One is the original lobby, the beet
sugar manufacturers. They cannot compete against foreign
cane sugar. If price supports were removed, the U.S.
beet sugar industry would disappear.

The other is the HFCS manufacturers, led by Archer
Daniels Midland. They created this end-run around
the sugar price supports, and now that they've got
this lucrative HFCS business, they spend lavishly
on politicians to keep it.

In article >,
Julia Altshuler > wrote:

> I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> all of the above?
>
>
> I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> with the HFCS version.
>
>
> --Lia

With the new stress on the corn market for "biofuels", lots of people
are hoping that the common use of HFCS will become a thing of the past...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:33:38 -0400, Julia Altshuler
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
> > >over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
> > >wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
> > >expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
> > >all of the above?
> > >
> > >
> > >I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
> > >different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
> > >Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
> > >there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
> > >national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
> > >with the HFCS version.
> > >
> > >
> > >--Lia
> > HFCS is cheaper and more available. Corn.
>
> Yep, but I wonder what the whole ethanol scam will do to the price
> point.

It's going to hurt everything of course.
Corn is also a MAJOR feed grain.

I agree it's a scam. Biofuel can be made from waste straw and weeds.
They don't have to use food to make it.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" > wrote in message
>
> I agree it's a scam. Biofuel can be made from waste straw and weeds.
> They don't have to use food to make it.
> --

In a sense, it makes no difference. A crop is a crop. If you take 10,000
acres of corn to make fuel, it is no different that taking that same 10,000
acres and planting hay or weeds. The yield per acre is the only thing that
counts. What is driving up prices of food crops is the fact that that
10,000 acres is taken over for biofuel. No different than if it was made
into a shopping mall or housing, it is just less area to farm for food.

Farmers (especially the big ones) are going to grow what makes the best
economic sense to them. The corn used for fuel is raised just for that and
generally varieties that we'd not eat anyway. Same with cattle feed
varieties.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

In article > ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> >
> > I agree it's a scam. Biofuel can be made from waste straw and weeds.
> > They don't have to use food to make it.
> > --
>
> In a sense, it makes no difference. A crop is a crop. If you take 10,000
> acres of corn to make fuel, it is no different that taking that same 10,000
> acres and planting hay or weeds.

Wrong.

Grow an acre of corn.
Use the corn for food.
Use the corn STALKS for making fuel.

Double duty for the land.

Corn stalks are usually burned...

1 acre of wheat.
Wheat goes for food,
Wheat straw for fuel.


> The yield per acre is the only thing that
> counts. What is driving up prices of food crops is the fact that that
> 10,000 acres is taken over for biofuel. No different than if it was made
> into a shopping mall or housing, it is just less area to farm for food.

Please see the above.

>
> Farmers (especially the big ones) are going to grow what makes the best
> economic sense to them. The corn used for fuel is raised just for that and
> generally varieties that we'd not eat anyway. Same with cattle feed
> varieties.

Again, yield can be doubled by using the waste.
There is, again NO NEED to use food to make ethanol!!!
Cellulose can be broken down and used instead.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >, Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
>over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
>wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
>expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
>all of the above?

It's the *voters*. Corn is a big industry in the US. Therefore the
price of cane sugar is kept artificially high to ensure HFCS can
compete.

For example, the current US raw sugar price is over 21c/lb
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/data/Table04.xls>
whereas the world raw sugar price is under 12c/lb
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/data/Table03.xls>

Many countries would be very happy to export cane sugar to you at
just a few cents above the current *world* price (I'm sure Brazil,
India, and Australia would) but are limited by quotas.

It has to be acknowledged that the quotas do permit the holders to
sell to you at the *US* price, and that's very profitable for them.
But it's a trivial quantity, and a high price for SFA is still a
return of SFA in the scheme of things. They would do *much* better to
be allowed to sell into your market at a lower price without quotas;
and you would then have cheaper *real* sugar. :-)

>I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
>different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
>Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
>there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
>national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
>with the HFCS version.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Omelet" > wrote in message
>
> Wrong.
>
> Grow an acre of corn.
> Use the corn for food.
> Use the corn STALKS for making fuel.


Wrong.

If you use the corn for food instead of fuel, you need to plant double the
land. You still need a given amount of bio mass to make a given amount of
fuel. If the land is not available, you still run intot he same
supply/demand issures.


>
> Double duty for the land.

And double l he land needed.

>
> Corn stalks are usually burned...
>
> 1 acre of wheat.
> Wheat goes for food,
> Wheat straw for fuel.

See above.


It is possible the farmers or the ethanol people have never thought of what
you suggest. My guess, though, is that they are using the most economical
methods available.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

In article > ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> It is possible the farmers or the ethanol people have never thought of what
> you suggest. My guess, though, is that they are using the most economical
> methods available.

No, they are using the method that will drive stock prices up the
highest and rip off people that are already on the edge of their budgets.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class takes
it up the rectum. As always.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in
t:

> It is possible the farmers or the ethanol people have never
> thought of what you suggest. My guess, though, is that
> they are using the most economical methods available.

large scale corn farming is subsidized under the Farm Bill.
ethanol production is also very heavily subsidized (over
50cents/gallon (your tax dollars at work), since ethanol from
corn is really inefficient.
my guess is that they are using pretty inefficient crops in
an inefficient manner as a sop to the populace over gas prices
(which are kept artificially low).
however, since everyone has finally switched to ethanol in
gas, i don't have an MTBE plume in my well water anymore

lee
--
"the Government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."
John Adams, the Treaty of Tripoli, Clause 11

"enigma" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in
> t:
>
>> It is possible the farmers or the ethanol people have never
>> thought of what you suggest. My guess, though, is that
>> they are using the most economical methods available.
>
> large scale corn farming is subsidized under the Farm Bill.
> ethanol production is also very heavily subsidized (over
> 50cents/gallon (your tax dollars at work), since ethanol from
> corn is really inefficient.
> my guess is that they are using pretty inefficient crops in
> an inefficient manner as a sop to the populace over gas prices
> (which are kept artificially low).
> however, since everyone has finally switched to ethanol in
> gas, i don't have an MTBE plume in my well water anymore
>
> lee
> --

Did you have it tested? 10% ethanol made a difference?
I thought the studies are still not completed as to whether it makes a
difference in the MTBE.
Dee Dee

"Dee Dee" > wrote in
:

>
> "enigma" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> however, since everyone has finally switched to ethanol in
>> gas, i don't have an MTBE plume in my well water anymore
>>
>
> Did you have it tested? 10% ethanol made a difference?
> I thought the studies are still not completed as to whether
> it makes a difference in the MTBE.

i have the wells tested annually. that's my drinking water.
once the MBTE was replaced by ethanol, there's no MBTE to leak
into the groundwater anymore.
MBTE is a very volatile compound. it dissapates very quickly
(within hours)when exposed to air & it spreads very rapidly in
groundwater.
gasolene has either MBTE *or* ethanol added. not both. NH
outlawed MBTE in 2006, a while before the Feds did. the fact
that MBTE was used at all, instead of ethanol, is due to the
big chemical company lobbies in Congress. it's really way less
efficient than ethanol (which is pretty inefficient itsself)
lee

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
t...
>
> sclipped
> Farmers (especially the big ones) are going to grow what makes the best
> economic sense to them. The corn used for fuel is raised just for that and
> generally varieties that we'd not eat anyway. Same with cattle feed
> varieties.
> --
> Ed
>
It's just way too bad that corn requires more (oil-based?)
fertilizer/insecticide and wrecks the land. It would be really green to get
the ethanol from soybeans or timothy or something else good for the land.
But they're probably not subsidized by the cornproducers. I saw a
documentary once about how bad the US Dept of Agriculture was, being
influenced by the growers it is supposed to govern. Dunno how accurate that
was, but it scared me to death.
Edrena

"Omelet" > wrote in message
>
> No, they are using the method that will drive stock prices up the
> highest and rip off people that are already on the edge of their budgets.
>
> The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class takes
> it up the rectum. As always.

I've heard that argument for everything for the past 60 years. One of the
things that makes America great is that we can all become rich if we want
to.

Who benefits from higher stock prices? I do, for one. If you have a 401k
or IRA, chances are you do too. We all want growth in our portfolios, the
lowest prices in good but we want them made in the USA, we want big houses
and small heating bills, bug cars and good gas mileage. We complain how MS
software sucks but cannot write a program of our own, we want low, low
prices at the store with the dumb smiley face but complain when the local
store goes out of business. And on and on.

Not to mention that the whole ethanol thing is a scam anyway. It has two
advantages. It is used to replace MTBE in gas and it eliminated the need to
use Dry Gas as an additive in the tank. Aside from that, it is still,
AFAIK, a negative using more energy than it produces.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:40:06 +0000 (UTC), enigma >
wrote:

>"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in
et:
>
>> It is possible the farmers or the ethanol people have never
>> thought of what you suggest. My guess, though, is that
>> they are using the most economical methods available.
>
>large scale corn farming is subsidized under the Farm Bill.
>ethanol production is also very heavily subsidized (over
>50cents/gallon (your tax dollars at work), since ethanol from
>corn is really inefficient.
> my guess is that they are using pretty inefficient crops in
>an inefficient manner as a sop to the populace over gas prices
>(which are kept artificially low).
> however, since everyone has finally switched to ethanol in
>gas, i don't have an MTBE plume in my well water anymore
>
>lee

What is MTBE please?

aloha,
beans
roast beans to kona to email
farmers of Pure Kona

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:33:38 -0400, Julia Altshuler
> wrote:

>I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
>over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
>wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
>expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
>all of the above?
>
>
>I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
>different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
>Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
>there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
>national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
>with the HFCS version.
>
>
>--Lia

h.f.c.s. is cheaper than cane sugar in the u.s. mostly due to tariffs.
from *wikipedia*:

"Many countries subsidize sugar-production heavily. The European
Union, the United States, Japan and many developing countries
subsidize domestic production and maintain high tariffs on imports.
Sugar prices in these countries have often exceeded prices on the
international market by up to three times; today, with world market
sugar futures prices currently strong, such prices typically exceed
world prices by two times."


some think this was done originally to punish cuba after the
revolution in 1933:

"...between one-third and one-half of the shock to Cuban export
earnings after 1930 was caused by the passage, in the United States,
of the Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930. More precisely, the critical blow
to Cuba was the incorporation into the Hawley-Smoot Act of a
substantial increase in the sugar tariff. Since at the time, Cuba
supplied all theduty-paying sugar imported into the United States,
that particular part of the tariff act was clearly aimed at Cuba."

<http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:SzTiy-H84iwJ:econ.ucalgary.ca/fac-files/rs/Nov27CTARPaper.pdf+sugar+tariffs+cuba&hl=en&ct=cln k&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a>

this is why most coca-cola bottlers in, say, mexico use cane sugar
instead. it is also the reason that, with the price of corn
increasing attendant to subsidies for ethanol, h.f.c.s. is becoming
more costly, and some candy manufacturers are moving to canada and
mexico.

your pal,
blake

> wrote in message
>
> What is MTBE please?
>
> aloha,

Methyl tertiary-butyl ether

It is an additive in gasoline to reduce pollution, but it adds other types
of pollution. It increases the octane level by oxygenating the gas. It is
known to leak along with the gas, and get into drinking water.

In article >,
says...
> In article > ,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
> > "Omelet" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > I agree it's a scam. Biofuel can be made from waste straw and weeds.
> > > They don't have to use food to make it.
> > > --
> >
> > In a sense, it makes no difference. A crop is a crop. If you take 10,000
> > acres of corn to make fuel, it is no different that taking that same 10,000
> > acres and planting hay or weeds.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Grow an acre of corn.
> Use the corn for food.
> Use the corn STALKS for making fuel.
>
> Double duty for the land.
>
> Corn stalks are usually burned...
>
> 1 acre of wheat.
> Wheat goes for food,
> Wheat straw for fuel.
>
>
> > The yield per acre is the only thing that
> > counts. What is driving up prices of food crops is the fact that that
> > 10,000 acres is taken over for biofuel. No different than if it was made
> > into a shopping mall or housing, it is just less area to farm for food.
>
> Please see the above.
>
> >
> > Farmers (especially the big ones) are going to grow what makes the best
> > economic sense to them. The corn used for fuel is raised just for that and
> > generally varieties that we'd not eat anyway. Same with cattle feed
> > varieties.
>
> Again, yield can be doubled by using the waste.
> There is, again NO NEED to use food to make ethanol!!!
> Cellulose can be broken down and used instead.
>

So true, we waste an awful lot of potential energy. Look at the oil
cracking process, that little flame jet that you see at the tops of many
a refinery are pretty much methane or hydrogen burning off.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm


Then of course add in light from that big ball of fire in the sky that
we call the Sun, as well as tidal interractions between Earth and it's
Moon.

There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> Not to mention that the whole ethanol thing is a scam anyway. It has two
> advantages. It is used to replace MTBE in gas and it eliminated the need to
> use Dry Gas as an additive in the tank. Aside from that, it is still,
> AFAIK, a negative using more energy than it produces.

And that is a good thing???
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
T > wrote:

> So true, we waste an awful lot of potential energy. Look at the oil
> cracking process, that little flame jet that you see at the tops of many
> a refinery are pretty much methane or hydrogen burning off.
>
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm
>
>
> Then of course add in light from that big ball of fire in the sky that
> we call the Sun, as well as tidal interractions between Earth and it's
> Moon.
>
> There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.

You forgot geothermal. :-)

Hawaii could run itself off it's volcanoes with energy to spare.

It's all about money...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

blake murphy wrote:
>
> this is why most coca-cola bottlers in, say, mexico use cane sugar
> instead. it is also the reason that, with the price of corn
> increasing attendant to subsidies for ethanol, h.f.c.s. is becoming
> more costly, and some candy manufacturers are moving to canada and
> mexico.

Although you didn't exactly say that candy makers
are moving because of rising HFCS prices, one could
parse that last sentence that way. Candy makers
are moving because of high sugar prices, not rising
HFCS prices. For most candies, you cannot use HFCS
as a substitute for sucrose, because HFCS will not
set up into a solid.

Omelet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
> > So true, we waste an awful lot of potential energy. Look at the oil
> > cracking process, that little flame jet that you see at the tops of many
> > a refinery are pretty much methane or hydrogen burning off.
> >
> > http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm
> >
> >
> > Then of course add in light from that big ball of fire in the sky that
> > we call the Sun, as well as tidal interractions between Earth and it's
> > Moon.
> >
> > There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.
>
> You forgot geothermal. :-)
>
> Hawaii could run itself off it's volcanoes with energy to spare.
>
> It's all about money...

Hawaii, for a seemingly "green" state, is incredibly wasteful of energy
from what I've seen. Look at all the tourist flyers with all the lovely
tiki torches burning away, each one of those things is burning something
like 23,000 btu/hr worth of imported natural gas. Bad enough to be
wasting 23,000 btu/hr on frivolous cosmetic stuff, but imported natural
gas?!!! At least produce some bio-fuel from stuff grown on the dang
island instead of bringing in LNG super tankers. Just one of those
torches wastes enough energy with it's 8hr/day x 365 day operation to
heat a house in the northern US during the winter months.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Hawaii, for a seemingly "green" state, is incredibly wasteful of energy
> from what I've seen. Look at all the tourist flyers with all the lovely
> tiki torches burning away, each one of those things is burning something
> like 23,000 btu/hr worth of imported natural gas. Bad enough to be
> wasting 23,000 btu/hr on frivolous cosmetic stuff, but imported natural
> gas?!!! At least produce some bio-fuel from stuff grown on the dang
> island instead of bringing in LNG super tankers. Just one of those
> torches wastes enough energy with it's 8hr/day x 365 day operation to
> heat a house in the northern US during the winter months.

But the tourist industry provides employment for lots
of people in Hawaii, so providing "atmosphere" is not
wasted energy.

It's like when there's an occasional drought in
California, and the news shows pictures of golf
courses being watered -- that's not wasted water.
Those golf courses provide considerable employment
for the amount of water they consume. If you want
to save water in California, stop growing two crops,
cotton and rice, and the saved water will completely
eliminate the worst drought. There's cheap labor
all over the world that will be delighted to grow
all the cotton and rice America could ever use.
Heck, there's good cotton and rice being grown
in the southern U.S. -- no need to waste good
California real estate and water on those crops.

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > T > wrote:
> >
> > > So true, we waste an awful lot of potential energy. Look at the oil
> > > cracking process, that little flame jet that you see at the tops of many
> > > a refinery are pretty much methane or hydrogen burning off.
> > >
> > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Then of course add in light from that big ball of fire in the sky that
> > > we call the Sun, as well as tidal interractions between Earth and it's
> > > Moon.
> > >
> > > There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.
> >
> > You forgot geothermal. :-)
> >
> > Hawaii could run itself off it's volcanoes with energy to spare.
> >
> > It's all about money...
>
> Hawaii, for a seemingly "green" state, is incredibly wasteful of energy
> from what I've seen. Look at all the tourist flyers with all the lovely
> tiki torches burning away, each one of those things is burning something
> like 23,000 btu/hr worth of imported natural gas. Bad enough to be
> wasting 23,000 btu/hr on frivolous cosmetic stuff, but imported natural
> gas?!!! At least produce some bio-fuel from stuff grown on the dang
> island instead of bringing in LNG super tankers. Just one of those
> torches wastes enough energy with it's 8hr/day x 365 day operation to
> heat a house in the northern US during the winter months.

I've not looked to be honest.

I use Citronella lamp oil here for Tiki torches to drive off the
mosquitos. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
> > So true, we waste an awful lot of potential energy. Look at the oil
> > cracking process, that little flame jet that you see at the tops of many
> > a refinery are pretty much methane or hydrogen burning off.
> >
> > http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm
> >
> >
> > Then of course add in light from that big ball of fire in the sky that
> > we call the Sun, as well as tidal interractions between Earth and it's
> > Moon.
> >
> > There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.
>
> You forgot geothermal. :-)
>
> Hawaii could run itself off it's volcanoes with energy to spare.
>
> It's all about money...
>

Of course it is. Just finished a very good book by Edwin Black titles
"Internal Combustion". He explains that electric vehicles were gaining
steam back in the late 19th and early 20th century and goes on to
explain how the big auto manufacturers like GM, and big oil like
Rockefeller's Standard Oil which lives on today as Exxon-Mobil.

In article >, says...
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > Hawaii, for a seemingly "green" state, is incredibly wasteful of energy
> > from what I've seen. Look at all the tourist flyers with all the lovely
> > tiki torches burning away, each one of those things is burning something
> > like 23,000 btu/hr worth of imported natural gas. Bad enough to be
> > wasting 23,000 btu/hr on frivolous cosmetic stuff, but imported natural
> > gas?!!! At least produce some bio-fuel from stuff grown on the dang
> > island instead of bringing in LNG super tankers. Just one of those
> > torches wastes enough energy with it's 8hr/day x 365 day operation to
> > heat a house in the northern US during the winter months.
>
> But the tourist industry provides employment for lots
> of people in Hawaii, so providing "atmosphere" is not
> wasted energy.
>
> It's like when there's an occasional drought in
> California, and the news shows pictures of golf
> courses being watered -- that's not wasted water.
> Those golf courses provide considerable employment
> for the amount of water they consume. If you want
> to save water in California, stop growing two crops,
> cotton and rice, and the saved water will completely
> eliminate the worst drought. There's cheap labor
> all over the world that will be delighted to grow
> all the cotton and rice America could ever use.
> Heck, there's good cotton and rice being grown
> in the southern U.S. -- no need to waste good
> California real estate and water on those crops.
>

Cotton I can see, just start growing hemp again. But rice is a little
different.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:29:06 GMT, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>> >
>> > There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.
>>
>> You forgot geothermal. :-)
>>
>> Hawaii could run itself off it's volcanoes with energy to spare.
>>
>> It's all about money...
>
>Hawaii, for a seemingly "green" state, is incredibly wasteful of energy
>from what I've seen. Look at all the tourist flyers with all the lovely
>tiki torches burning away, each one of those things is burning something
>like 23,000 btu/hr worth of imported natural gas. Bad enough to be
>wasting 23,000 btu/hr on frivolous cosmetic stuff, but imported natural
>gas?!!! At least produce some bio-fuel from stuff grown on the dang
>island instead of bringing in LNG super tankers. Just one of those
>torches wastes enough energy with it's 8hr/day x 365 day operation to
>heat a house in the northern US during the winter months.

OT of course---I don't know if your butane thing is accurate, but you
are correct, we are hardly a "green" state. Hawaii is not a
progressive state at all- we've been ruled by the same political party
for 50 years!

Regarding green: being the most isolated land mass on earth which we
are, means we have one big thing against us. Distance to other
land.- We have no real recycle place locally and it all must be sent
to the mainland. Everything that we use must be brought in.

One of our big rubbish dumps in Honolulu uses garbage as fuel, but it
is not handling all the rubbish. The powers-that-be are considering
sending our extra rubbish to the mainland.

We are not evolved. 1/3 of the islands' population works for the
government (!) Federal or State and I would be willing to bet, all
those people have air conditioners and w/o being too disparaging, how
many of those very government workers worry about *being green*? Heck,
the local Airport Authority plans to enclose the Kailua Kona airport
(Keahole) because its open air tropical theme allows bugs in. We don't
have many bugs, honest. Beach goers don't complain about bugs and the
airport is near the beach.

I think we have always been dependent on gas and oil, etc. etc from
the mainland so we just continue to build it into our lives.

BTW Geothermal is used in a small part on this island of Hawaii.

Sorry for my rant. Tip toeing out of here.

aloha,
beans
roast beans to kona to email
farmers of Pure Kona

T > wrote:

> Cotton I can see, just start growing hemp again.

They do at some places, legally, though not for cotton, yet.
Swiss-produced cannabis iced tea is sold in the food hall of a local
department store here and is apparently available in Austria, too. Most
of the THT has been removed, though. See
<http://www.shoppingwels.at/newsletter/c_ice.jpg>.

Victor

In article >,
T > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > In article >,
> > T > wrote:
> >
> > > So true, we waste an awful lot of potential energy. Look at the oil
> > > cracking process, that little flame jet that you see at the tops of many
> > > a refinery are pretty much methane or hydrogen burning off.
> > >
> > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Then of course add in light from that big ball of fire in the sky that
> > > we call the Sun, as well as tidal interractions between Earth and it's
> > > Moon.
> > >
> > > There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.
> >
> > You forgot geothermal. :-)
> >
> > Hawaii could run itself off it's volcanoes with energy to spare.
> >
> > It's all about money...
> >
>
> Of course it is. Just finished a very good book by Edwin Black titles
> "Internal Combustion". He explains that electric vehicles were gaining
> steam back in the late 19th and early 20th century and goes on to
> explain how the big auto manufacturers like GM, and big oil like
> Rockefeller's Standard Oil which lives on today as Exxon-Mobil.

I have to wonder how good of a living one can make being a professional
lobbyist.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
T > wrote:

> In article >, says...
> > "Pete C." wrote:
> > >
> > > Hawaii, for a seemingly "green" state, is incredibly wasteful of energy
> > > from what I've seen. Look at all the tourist flyers with all the lovely
> > > tiki torches burning away, each one of those things is burning something
> > > like 23,000 btu/hr worth of imported natural gas. Bad enough to be
> > > wasting 23,000 btu/hr on frivolous cosmetic stuff, but imported natural
> > > gas?!!! At least produce some bio-fuel from stuff grown on the dang
> > > island instead of bringing in LNG super tankers. Just one of those
> > > torches wastes enough energy with it's 8hr/day x 365 day operation to
> > > heat a house in the northern US during the winter months.
> >
> > But the tourist industry provides employment for lots
> > of people in Hawaii, so providing "atmosphere" is not
> > wasted energy.
> >
> > It's like when there's an occasional drought in
> > California, and the news shows pictures of golf
> > courses being watered -- that's not wasted water.
> > Those golf courses provide considerable employment
> > for the amount of water they consume. If you want
> > to save water in California, stop growing two crops,
> > cotton and rice, and the saved water will completely
> > eliminate the worst drought. There's cheap labor
> > all over the world that will be delighted to grow
> > all the cotton and rice America could ever use.
> > Heck, there's good cotton and rice being grown
> > in the southern U.S. -- no need to waste good
> > California real estate and water on those crops.
> >
>
> Cotton I can see, just start growing hemp again.

Good luck with that. ;-)

> But rice is a little
> different.

I don't understand why they'd bother.
It comes in so cheap from China.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
wrote:

> We are not evolved. 1/3 of the islands' population works for the
> government (!) Federal or State and I would be willing to bet, all
> those people have air conditioners and w/o being too disparaging, how
> many of those very government workers worry about *being green*? Heck,
> the local Airport Authority plans to enclose the Kailua Kona airport
> (Keahole) because its open air tropical theme allows bugs in. We don't
> have many bugs, honest. Beach goers don't complain about bugs and the
> airport is near the beach.
>
> I think we have always been dependent on gas and oil, etc. etc from
> the mainland so we just continue to build it into our lives.
>
> BTW Geothermal is used in a small part on this island of Hawaii.
>
> Sorry for my rant. Tip toeing out of here.
>
> aloha,
> beans

Don't apologize. :-) It was a GOOD rant!

Hawaii is a beautiful place.
I can't help but wonder how self-sufficient it could be if it ever got
isolated.

The natives that lived there for hundreds of years seemed to have
survived ok.

Main crops iirc are tourism, pineapples and coconuts?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > In article >,
> > > T > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So true, we waste an awful lot of potential energy. Look at the oil
> > > > cracking process, that little flame jet that you see at the tops of many
> > > > a refinery are pretty much methane or hydrogen burning off.
> > > >
> > > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then of course add in light from that big ball of fire in the sky that
> > > > we call the Sun, as well as tidal interractions between Earth and it's
> > > > Moon.
> > > >
> > > > There's a lot of energy out there just waiting to be taken.
> > >
> > > You forgot geothermal. :-)
> > >
> > > Hawaii could run itself off it's volcanoes with energy to spare.
> > >
> > > It's all about money...
> > >
> >
> > Of course it is. Just finished a very good book by Edwin Black titles
> > "Internal Combustion". He explains that electric vehicles were gaining
> > steam back in the late 19th and early 20th century and goes on to
> > explain how the big auto manufacturers like GM, and big oil like
> > Rockefeller's Standard Oil which lives on today as Exxon-Mobil.
>
> I have to wonder how good of a living one can make being a professional
> lobbyist.
>

You can do very nicely.

But I'm not a lobbyist, I just know how it works.