At this point, I can't be sure what to expect what the future will hold for the automoble industry. But I would have to think hydrogen is the way to go because it is cheaper than gas, its only emmissions are heat and water, and it is abundent. But, problems can occur, and I'm not going to put all my faith in hydrogen cars until scientists can perfect the technology into an affordable and efficient medium.
-
Welcome back to Pokécharms! We've recently launched a new site and upgraded forums, so there may be a few teething issues as everything settles in. Please see our Relaunch FAQs for more information.
Alternative Fuels
- Thread starter Silver Scizor
- Start date
Yes, you have a good point. So does ethanol however. To produce a gallon of ethanol, a gallon of diesel is used in the distilling process. Then the ethanol is only about 75% as efficient as the gasoline. Quite a price to pay for cleaner emissions. I did a report on this, so I have a little backround in the subject.
Vegetable Oil
Unlike electric cars, it doesn't ruin the performance of the car, unlike hydrogen power, it doesn't require twice the amount of energy to make it useful and, of course, unlike petrol, it wont run out nor kill the planet.
You can even grow your own fuel, if you have a maffis farm for a back garden.
Unlike electric cars, it doesn't ruin the performance of the car, unlike hydrogen power, it doesn't require twice the amount of energy to make it useful and, of course, unlike petrol, it wont run out nor kill the planet.
You can even grow your own fuel, if you have a maffis farm for a back garden.
I still like the idea of a glider - a few feet of runway wide enough for the wings, a small battery to take off, and then you can glide effortlessly through the skies direct to your destination. With only the small amount of energy used being the battery (rechargable, of course), it's quite efficient I think.
And they start selling these things at the end of the year.
So let's just stop using cars altogether, imo. ^^
And they start selling these things at the end of the year.
So let's just stop using cars altogether, imo. ^^
It was corn, A.K.A. ethanol. As I described above. :
Electric powered cars don't really help all that much in that solution though. Afterall, how do you imagine that electricity is produced in the first place? 
Batteries need charged.
Lol. But my brother once told me this, ahem, "story" about some guy who built a water-powered car that ran off of nothing but water. He drove it around the entire US and whenever he ran out of fuel he got a bucket of water, put it in the gas tank, and drove off, but the government confiscated(sp?) it because it didn't run on gas or somethin'. But, my brother has many "stories", such as a car that can get 45 miles to the gallon or about some japanese guy who built a car with a fountain on the inside. sigh :. The thingfs my brother can think of. However, a water powered car would be freakin' awesome.
. The thingfs my brother can think of. However, a water powered car would be freakin' awesome.
P
PokeRad
According to me, nuclear power would be the best source. This is because not only is it available in ample amounts in the world ,but it also does not cause any pollution.
When a Nuclear power plant asplodes, it does a lot worse than cause pollution. Not to mention the risks day-to-day workers have of being around radioactive material all day every day.
Plus, we're talking about cars here. You can hardly fit a mini-nuclear reactor into the front of a car and it would be immensely dangerous to do so even if possible.
Plus, we're talking about cars here. You can hardly fit a mini-nuclear reactor into the front of a car and it would be immensely dangerous to do so even if possible.
I don't like ethanol for this equation:
Ethanol is made from corn.
This would cause corn prices to soar.
A third of movie profits come from popcorn alone.
The price of a movie ticket would be raised even higher. Possibly to $15. At least.
Yes, there was a water powered car that emitted water vapor. But it didn't run just on water. It needed electricity as well.
The best solution would be man power. Get off your butt and walk! Well, if you could. But at this rate they're has to be some kind of new energy.
Ethanol is made from corn.
This would cause corn prices to soar.
A third of movie profits come from popcorn alone.
The price of a movie ticket would be raised even higher. Possibly to $15. At least.
Yes, there was a water powered car that emitted water vapor. But it didn't run just on water. It needed electricity as well.
The best solution would be man power. Get off your butt and walk! Well, if you could. But at this rate they're has to be some kind of new energy.
You have a good point there. As a matter of fact, the price of corn and other corn products have ALREADY risen in certain areas. I remember last year my teacher was telling us how tortilla prices in Mexico had tripled because of higher ethanol use. And if we used Ethanol even more, even the price of cornflakes would increase.
I most definetly do NOT agree. Remember Chernobyl (sp?) people.
And, Ethonal is also bad, from what leehage said. I most definetly don't want movie prices to go up, they're already expensive enough over here as it is.
The only true solution is something that has been in the works since the 19th century: perpetual energy.
Basically, perpetual energy is a machine that produces more energy than it requires. So lets say it took 5 volts to work but produced 10 volts of power. This could keep going on until you had unlimited power. But like I said, it has been in the works for 200 years. But that is the only true solution.
Basically, perpetual energy is a machine that produces more energy than it requires. So lets say it took 5 volts to work but produced 10 volts of power. This could keep going on until you had unlimited power. But like I said, it has been in the works for 200 years. But that is the only true solution.
I'm going to have to go with water. I've designed a vehicle that could easily and efficiently use water. So, if a 14 year old can do it, then maybe people in the car industry should be able to. 
I actually read somewhere that the cellulose in kudzu could be used as fuel of some kind. I don't know how much that would help or even if that's possible, but I would like for more research to be done on it. Goodness knows we need to get rid of the stuff in the US.
Btw, In case you wanted to know: This is Kudzu
And yes it really does grow all over everything like that. And yes I find it very annoying and am for anything that gets rid of it (it's an invasive species).
Btw, In case you wanted to know: This is Kudzu
And yes it really does grow all over everything like that. And yes I find it very annoying and am for anything that gets rid of it (it's an invasive species).
Dear gods. Something tells me I need to put my science genius girl hat on and wade into this topic to clean up a lot of BAD SCIENCE. Oh dear.
leehage: Perpetual motion machines are impossible. They are prohibited by the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can never be created or destroyed, just transformed from one type into another. There are mathematical proofs that go with this but I really don't want to go into them. The closest we ever get to 100%/lossless conversion of energy is the example of an electric heater turning electrical energy --> heat energy without producing light or sound. However, the problem with heat energy is that it spreads out into the air and becomes too "diluted" to be useful. So converting heat energy back into electrical energy is extremely inefficient.
I can't think of any example where 100% conversion of energy could be possible in both directions. There are always losses, which is the problem.
PlatinumAce: Water? Whut?
You can't burn water because when you burn anything, you get the oxide of that element. Burn magnesium, you get magnesium oxide. Burn hydrogen, you get hydrogen oxide. Burn water? You get nothing, because water is not only already hydrogen oxide, it also puts out fires.
If your idea is based on the electrolysis of water then combustion of the resulting hydrogen, congratulations: you have just reinvented the hydrogen fuel cell. More about that later.
Everyone: There are 3 basic ideas for feasible, "environmentally friendly" automobiles in the long term:
1. Electric cars - using electricity generated from renewable resources / nuclear fission / nuclear fusion.
2. Combustion engines - burning biofuels.
3. Hydrogen fuel cell engines.
Electric cars are already in existence, both 100% electric and hybrids that use conventional fossil fuels along with electricity. Electric cars are clean when powered by electricity that's produced renewably. The problem with most renewable resources is that they're not reliable. Wind power only works when it's windy. Solar power only works when it's sunny, and is remarkably poor at generating electricity. Hydroelectric power requires the presence of a waterfall. The only renewable resource that's always available to be used is geothermal power, but that requires being situated near a fault line for volcanic/tectonic activity. Iceland has an abundance of geothermal power, and it's wonderful.
Nuclear fission may be an acceptable short-term answer to our energy needs. What happened at Chernobyl can never happen again. Essentially, the disaster happened because a group of scientists were experimenting with the reactor, unofficially, in the middle of the night. They thought their experiment would be okay, but the scientists on-site didn't properly understand what their superiors wanted to do. They made one mistake, then accidentally disabled the automatic safety mechanisms. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how that ended in disaster. Also, Chernobyl was an old design of reactor. Off the top of my head, I think it was a fast breeder reactor. We don't have those anymore.
However, the problem with long-lasting radioactive waste remains. This stuff stays dangerous for thousands of years. Where can we store it? Is it fair to future generations to live with this stuff buried in the ground? A lot of people are opposed to this.
Nuclear fusion is the best idea. The fuel it uses is abundant hydrogen, and the waste it produces is only radioactive for 50 years or so. But we're many years away from it being a reality. The first full-size fusion reactor is scheduled to begin operation in 2015, and if it all works correctly, the first real one will appear in around 2030. We'll be running out of fossil fuels long before that.
Realising that I've turned into the parody of myself in the Chronicles, I'll write about biofuels and their problems some other time.
leehage: Perpetual motion machines are impossible. They are prohibited by the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can never be created or destroyed, just transformed from one type into another. There are mathematical proofs that go with this but I really don't want to go into them. The closest we ever get to 100%/lossless conversion of energy is the example of an electric heater turning electrical energy --> heat energy without producing light or sound. However, the problem with heat energy is that it spreads out into the air and becomes too "diluted" to be useful. So converting heat energy back into electrical energy is extremely inefficient.
I can't think of any example where 100% conversion of energy could be possible in both directions. There are always losses, which is the problem.
PlatinumAce: Water? Whut?
You can't burn water because when you burn anything, you get the oxide of that element. Burn magnesium, you get magnesium oxide. Burn hydrogen, you get hydrogen oxide. Burn water? You get nothing, because water is not only already hydrogen oxide, it also puts out fires.
If your idea is based on the electrolysis of water then combustion of the resulting hydrogen, congratulations: you have just reinvented the hydrogen fuel cell. More about that later.
Everyone: There are 3 basic ideas for feasible, "environmentally friendly" automobiles in the long term:
1. Electric cars - using electricity generated from renewable resources / nuclear fission / nuclear fusion.
2. Combustion engines - burning biofuels.
3. Hydrogen fuel cell engines.
Electric cars are already in existence, both 100% electric and hybrids that use conventional fossil fuels along with electricity. Electric cars are clean when powered by electricity that's produced renewably. The problem with most renewable resources is that they're not reliable. Wind power only works when it's windy. Solar power only works when it's sunny, and is remarkably poor at generating electricity. Hydroelectric power requires the presence of a waterfall. The only renewable resource that's always available to be used is geothermal power, but that requires being situated near a fault line for volcanic/tectonic activity. Iceland has an abundance of geothermal power, and it's wonderful.
Nuclear fission may be an acceptable short-term answer to our energy needs. What happened at Chernobyl can never happen again. Essentially, the disaster happened because a group of scientists were experimenting with the reactor, unofficially, in the middle of the night. They thought their experiment would be okay, but the scientists on-site didn't properly understand what their superiors wanted to do. They made one mistake, then accidentally disabled the automatic safety mechanisms. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how that ended in disaster. Also, Chernobyl was an old design of reactor. Off the top of my head, I think it was a fast breeder reactor. We don't have those anymore.
However, the problem with long-lasting radioactive waste remains. This stuff stays dangerous for thousands of years. Where can we store it? Is it fair to future generations to live with this stuff buried in the ground? A lot of people are opposed to this.
Nuclear fusion is the best idea. The fuel it uses is abundant hydrogen, and the waste it produces is only radioactive for 50 years or so. But we're many years away from it being a reality. The first full-size fusion reactor is scheduled to begin operation in 2015, and if it all works correctly, the first real one will appear in around 2030. We'll be running out of fossil fuels long before that.
Realising that I've turned into the parody of myself in the Chronicles, I'll write about biofuels and their problems some other time
.If anyone is interested, I can post my report I had to write this year on alternative fuels. The entire paper basically bashes ethanol and points out its flaws. I'm just lazy right now and don't want to post it if no one wants to see it.
*Yawn....*
*Yawn....*
*This report of mine is somewhat short, but I feel it brings up some key issues. The refrences for the report will be listed below. Also, my report is in a double spaced format by the teacher's request and it would take a while to alter. Plus, as you read through, you may notice many names or numbers in parentheses, that is simply the cite for the sources listed below.*
Alternative Fuels
The issue regarding alternative fuel sources has surrounded the world for years.
Now, new options for cars are being developed and released to consumers, options such
as battery or plug in cars, hybrids, fuel cells, and most of all, ethanol fuel. Even
though ethanol fuel may seem like a good idea and can solve the fuel problem for the
time being, it has many hidden flaws.
Fossil fuels should be replaced in the future with a renewable, inexpensive,
alternative. Not ethanol. Environmentalist groups and Congress should stop hindering the
production of fossil fuels and focus on developing a better alternative. That way the price
of gas will somewhat decrease and consumers will have more money. With more money,
the consumers will help the market by buying more goods instead of gas. Then, by the
time an affordable and renewable fuel source is found, the economy will be in better
shape and consumers will not be as stressed. The three main reasons why ethanol is a
bad alternative is it ruins the economy, it causes more health problems, and it's
inefficient.
Ethanol fuel has ruined the economy. The process by which this has occurred is as
follows. First, as ethanol was introduced to the market, many commercial farms across
the U.S. switched to growing corn to cooperate in the effort and to gain a solid source of
money as certain crops do not always pay out completely. This caused the price of
wheat to rise, as most of the farms that switched to corn were wheat farms to begin with.
But, even with all the corn farms, the price of corn went up because some the corn being
grown is used in the production of fuel rather than food, 20% to be exact (Pfeiffer 7).
Second, with the price of corn and wheat skyrocketing, all products containing them will
become very expensive also. This includes most baked goods, as well as anything
containing corn syrup, which are many things. The article "Biofuels" stated, "An Iowa
State University study in May 2007 estimated that higher corn prices increased U.S. food
prices by 14 billion annually!" (10). Third, all of these factors will put tremendous stress
on the consumer's wallet; many people will strive to just get their basic foods and
necessities. Nothing else would be bought and therefore many other companies will lose
money. Yet there is a good side if this were to happen, this would give people the chance
to buy stocks while they're low and make a profit after the market finally stabilizes and
bounces back.
Ethanol is proven to cause health problems, especially breathing issues due to its
emissions. According to the article "New Knocks Against Ethanol" "…a study from
Stanford University suggests o-zone produced by ethanol-fueled vehicles might end up
killing more people than emissions from gas vehicles. The gas is known to enflame lung
tissue, worsen asthma, and weaken the immune system" (McConnon 1). Many people
and families across the U.S. suffer from respiratory problems, especially asthma, and
these people don't need the burden or fear of having to go outside to go to school or work
with the threat of an asthma attack lurking over their heads. Not to mention that many
people exposed to this will suffer from a weakened immune system, possibly resulting in
uncontrollable epidemics and increased death tolls. The estimation for total increased
death toll is 4%, which is a lot of lives (2).
Lastly, ethanol is horrible because it is inefficient. The main issue is that it takes
the same amount of fossil fuels to make the same amount of ethanol (Pfeiffer 4). Plus
ethanol gets 29% less gas mileage than normal gas (9). But another big question
surrounding the ethanol issue is where is all the ethanol? The answer lies in the Corn
Belt. About 1,100 ethanol fuel stations are set up in the U.S., but most of them are in the
mid west near their suppliers (Ulrich 12). Another problem is not all cars are set up to run
on E85: 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline, and to equip most cars would cost between $50 and
$150 (14). This is not as expensive as some things, but it is still money out of the
consumer's pocket. Further proof that ethanol is inefficient is according to the article
"Penny Wise, Pound Fuelish" it said,
"Ethanol acts as a solvent that can loosen the sludge, varnish and dirt that accumulate in a fuel tank. Ethanol also absorbs water, and the ethanol-water mixture may separate from blended gasoline and sink to the bottom of a fuel tank, where the fuel pickup is located. This mixture can clog fuel lines and block carburetor jets and may be incompatible with older rubber compounds and some metals" (Gross 3).
Thus, you have more problems and in result you have even more money coming out of
the consumers pocket. Yet, there are other fuel alternatives that are very innovative, such
as battery cars. Battery cars and hybrids are a very cost friendly idea that will soon be
widely available. The technology is still to be improved, but the currently available ones,
which are mostly hybrids, can get up to between 45 and 50 miles per gallon. The Toyota
Prius for example, can go 40 miles on its battery alone, which is 78% of U.S. commuters'
drive to work. The Prius costs an average total of $650 to fuel for over 15,000 miles, plus
it gives off less than 50% of the emissions of that of a normal car (Ulrich 5). But the
best fuel alternative instead of ethanol is probably hydrogen. Hydrogen cars would be
amazing because of their zero emissions. The car's electrochemical motor only needs
hydrogen and oxygen to power itself, and the only byproducts are water and heat. The
hydrogen for the cars, estimated, would be sold for about $3 to $4 per kilogram, and a
kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy as a gallon of gas, but since the vehicle,
once perfected, is designed to run on hydrogen, it doubles the gas mileage. Thus, fuel
would cost about $1.50 to $2 per gallon. Now that's phenomenal (Ulrich 24).
In conclusion, Ethanol is an undesirable alternative in the fact that it has ruined
the economy, it causes health issues, and it is not efficient. Ethanol has the potential to
bring this countries economy, and most of all, its people to their knees. Help certain
environmentalist groups fight to stop the production of ethanol, because if it isn't
stopped, the country may fall into a deep and somewhat destructive depression.
Works Cited
Gross, Ken. "Penny Wise, Pound Fuelish." Autoweek January 2008: p.28-28.MAS
FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Ulrich, Lawrence. "Green-Fuel Guide." Popular Science May 2007: p.76-81.MAS
FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
McConnon, Aili. "New Knocks Against Ethanol." Business Week May 2007: p.79-79.
MAS FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Pfeiffer, Betty. "Biofuels." Odyssey February 2008: p.30-32. MAS FullText Ultra.
[Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Works Consulted
McCormack, Karyn. "Too Much Ethanol?" Business Week Online June 2007: p.14-14.
MAS FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Bryan Walsh. "The Trouble with Biofuels" Time 14 February 2008:
Alternative Fuels
The issue regarding alternative fuel sources has surrounded the world for years.
Now, new options for cars are being developed and released to consumers, options such
as battery or plug in cars, hybrids, fuel cells, and most of all, ethanol fuel. Even
though ethanol fuel may seem like a good idea and can solve the fuel problem for the
time being, it has many hidden flaws.
Fossil fuels should be replaced in the future with a renewable, inexpensive,
alternative. Not ethanol. Environmentalist groups and Congress should stop hindering the
production of fossil fuels and focus on developing a better alternative. That way the price
of gas will somewhat decrease and consumers will have more money. With more money,
the consumers will help the market by buying more goods instead of gas. Then, by the
time an affordable and renewable fuel source is found, the economy will be in better
shape and consumers will not be as stressed. The three main reasons why ethanol is a
bad alternative is it ruins the economy, it causes more health problems, and it's
inefficient.
Ethanol fuel has ruined the economy. The process by which this has occurred is as
follows. First, as ethanol was introduced to the market, many commercial farms across
the U.S. switched to growing corn to cooperate in the effort and to gain a solid source of
money as certain crops do not always pay out completely. This caused the price of
wheat to rise, as most of the farms that switched to corn were wheat farms to begin with.
But, even with all the corn farms, the price of corn went up because some the corn being
grown is used in the production of fuel rather than food, 20% to be exact (Pfeiffer 7).
Second, with the price of corn and wheat skyrocketing, all products containing them will
become very expensive also. This includes most baked goods, as well as anything
containing corn syrup, which are many things. The article "Biofuels" stated, "An Iowa
State University study in May 2007 estimated that higher corn prices increased U.S. food
prices by 14 billion annually!" (10). Third, all of these factors will put tremendous stress
on the consumer's wallet; many people will strive to just get their basic foods and
necessities. Nothing else would be bought and therefore many other companies will lose
money. Yet there is a good side if this were to happen, this would give people the chance
to buy stocks while they're low and make a profit after the market finally stabilizes and
bounces back.
Ethanol is proven to cause health problems, especially breathing issues due to its
emissions. According to the article "New Knocks Against Ethanol" "…a study from
Stanford University suggests o-zone produced by ethanol-fueled vehicles might end up
killing more people than emissions from gas vehicles. The gas is known to enflame lung
tissue, worsen asthma, and weaken the immune system" (McConnon 1). Many people
and families across the U.S. suffer from respiratory problems, especially asthma, and
these people don't need the burden or fear of having to go outside to go to school or work
with the threat of an asthma attack lurking over their heads. Not to mention that many
people exposed to this will suffer from a weakened immune system, possibly resulting in
uncontrollable epidemics and increased death tolls. The estimation for total increased
death toll is 4%, which is a lot of lives (2).
Lastly, ethanol is horrible because it is inefficient. The main issue is that it takes
the same amount of fossil fuels to make the same amount of ethanol (Pfeiffer 4). Plus
ethanol gets 29% less gas mileage than normal gas (9). But another big question
surrounding the ethanol issue is where is all the ethanol? The answer lies in the Corn
Belt. About 1,100 ethanol fuel stations are set up in the U.S., but most of them are in the
mid west near their suppliers (Ulrich 12). Another problem is not all cars are set up to run
on E85: 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline, and to equip most cars would cost between $50 and
$150 (14). This is not as expensive as some things, but it is still money out of the
consumer's pocket. Further proof that ethanol is inefficient is according to the article
"Penny Wise, Pound Fuelish" it said,
"Ethanol acts as a solvent that can loosen the sludge, varnish and dirt that accumulate in a fuel tank. Ethanol also absorbs water, and the ethanol-water mixture may separate from blended gasoline and sink to the bottom of a fuel tank, where the fuel pickup is located. This mixture can clog fuel lines and block carburetor jets and may be incompatible with older rubber compounds and some metals" (Gross 3).
Thus, you have more problems and in result you have even more money coming out of
the consumers pocket. Yet, there are other fuel alternatives that are very innovative, such
as battery cars. Battery cars and hybrids are a very cost friendly idea that will soon be
widely available. The technology is still to be improved, but the currently available ones,
which are mostly hybrids, can get up to between 45 and 50 miles per gallon. The Toyota
Prius for example, can go 40 miles on its battery alone, which is 78% of U.S. commuters'
drive to work. The Prius costs an average total of $650 to fuel for over 15,000 miles, plus
it gives off less than 50% of the emissions of that of a normal car (Ulrich 5). But the
best fuel alternative instead of ethanol is probably hydrogen. Hydrogen cars would be
amazing because of their zero emissions. The car's electrochemical motor only needs
hydrogen and oxygen to power itself, and the only byproducts are water and heat. The
hydrogen for the cars, estimated, would be sold for about $3 to $4 per kilogram, and a
kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy as a gallon of gas, but since the vehicle,
once perfected, is designed to run on hydrogen, it doubles the gas mileage. Thus, fuel
would cost about $1.50 to $2 per gallon. Now that's phenomenal (Ulrich 24).
In conclusion, Ethanol is an undesirable alternative in the fact that it has ruined
the economy, it causes health issues, and it is not efficient. Ethanol has the potential to
bring this countries economy, and most of all, its people to their knees. Help certain
environmentalist groups fight to stop the production of ethanol, because if it isn't
stopped, the country may fall into a deep and somewhat destructive depression.
Works Cited
Gross, Ken. "Penny Wise, Pound Fuelish." Autoweek January 2008: p.28-28.MAS
FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Ulrich, Lawrence. "Green-Fuel Guide." Popular Science May 2007: p.76-81.MAS
FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
McConnon, Aili. "New Knocks Against Ethanol." Business Week May 2007: p.79-79.
MAS FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Pfeiffer, Betty. "Biofuels." Odyssey February 2008: p.30-32. MAS FullText Ultra.
[Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Works Consulted
McCormack, Karyn. "Too Much Ethanol?" Business Week Online June 2007: p.14-14.
MAS FullText Ultra. [Online] EBSCOHost, 23 March 2008.
Bryan Walsh. "The Trouble with Biofuels" Time 14 February 2008:
Last edited by a moderator:
Well not so much, the point of the essay is made across. It's just the writing. Some parts could have been written better.
Maybe so, but is this really the point of the topic, to criticize other people's work? The point is an argument about Alternative Fuels, not criticizing other people's work.
That post was off-topic, but it is within...respectable reason. I'll let you off the hook, but try to be more careful about what you post please. We're not here to ask about grades, we're here to debate.
That post was off-topic, but it is within...respectable reason. I'll let you off the hook, but try to be more careful about what you post please. We're not here to ask about grades, we're here to debate.
Thanks Jetters for defending my opinion, but I dont mind telling Nexle what the grade I got was. I recieved a B+ because of the fourth paragraph. The teacher felt that it was a very important topic to discuss and that I needed to put more details into it. Also, there were a few grammer mistakes. But other than that, the paper was very good, not great, but very good.
I've been out for a while, and it is good to be back.
Now burp23, the farmers aren't being greedy, its the fuel station owners who won't distribute ethanol for one reason or another. Also, farmers work long hours, and don't always have a say where their product is sent or what it is used for once they sell it.
Now burp23, the farmers aren't being greedy, its the fuel station owners who won't distribute ethanol for one reason or another. Also, farmers work long hours, and don't always have a say where their product is sent or what it is used for once they sell it.