How Rockefeller Eased Out Alcohol As A Fuel

Why does transportation cost so much?  Gasoline/petrol costs $5/£5 a gallon.  Yet a hundred years ago it was a  waste product, basically the parts of petroleum that were too volatile to put into lighting and heating systems, which were discarded as too dangerous.  Cars to begin with all ran on alcohol which was a readily available fuel until Prohibition banned not the drinking of alcohol, but the production of alcohol.  Prohibition was brought about with Rockefeller dollars.  Rockefeller saw that getting rid of alcohol would give him the automobile fuel market.  Here’s the history –

Alcohol costs 40 cents a gallon were it produced today locally by small producers……just like this, where a backyard op produces 5 gallons an hour.  Oh yes.  You call it ethanol, and it’s not illegal.  You ferment corn or apples or brewery waste or something, and then boil off the ‘ethanol’.  It’s a powerful enough fuel to run anything you need, and costs zilch.  180/190 degrees proof, and it burns clean without pollution.  You need an ethanol permit in the USA.  In the UK, I’m not too sure….but somehow or other I am sure people will be doing this in growing numbers.

Ethanol definition on wikipedia –  Ethanol, also called ethyl alcoholpure alcoholgrain alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a volatileflammable, colorless liquid

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

7 Responses to “How Rockefeller Eased Out Alcohol As A Fuel”

  1. At £1.30 a litre about 80p is tax and about 50p is the cost of the petrol itself.

    So when you see politicos talking about OPEC increasing production, it’s just a smokescreen really.

  2. Tapestry says:

    Stuart, nice ID for your comments!

    ‘ethanol’ costs from nothing to 40 cents/ a gallon – or 10c/6p a litre tops to make at home.

  3. Woodsy42 says:

    Just a note – I’m seeing blue text (the Sarah Burnette article) overprinted on the top of the blog page.

  4. Tapestry says:

    Yes, Woodsy42. I’m sorry about that. When I copy and pasted her bio from her blog, it failed to appear, or rather it was transferred into white letters on white background. As I recoloured the text to blue, it appeared in the blog post and at the top of my blog, from where it has not strayed since.

    I notice that blogs they wish not to be copied they load it with booby traps like this. Except the splurging of the copy onto the top of the blog is a new one I’ve not seen before.

    What has Dr Burnett done other than warn pregnant women against being X-Rayed which seems like common sense anyway?

    She’s obviously offended those who intend these machines to cut the population…or what else might one suggest?

    I’ll go and delete the text in the blogpost and see if it disappears from the blog header. Thanks.

  5. My good lady works as a radiographer and it is entirely standard practice to ask any woman who is of possible age, if she is or maybe pregnant prior to an X-ray.
    The introduction of these things is purely about money, hysteria and getting people used to being treated like cattle. (Note how when you are being patted down, you have to adopt the ‘surrender’ pose).

  6. Tapestry says:

    wrong thread, Stuart?

    If the lady questioned replies that she is pregnant, do they proceed with the X Ray or not?

  7. Woodsy42 says:

    Blogger does some very strange things doesn’t it. One wonders what is going on, but suspects it’s not something good!
    Incidentally Google search has been wierd recently too. Specifically I have noticed some searches produce entirely different results depending on whether you click the ‘search’ button (it modified the word you entered) or hit return after entering a search word. The button often, but not always, gives sanitsed obviously censored results.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.