Skip to comments.Dark sides to ethanol boom
Posted on 07/27/2007 5:24:36 PM PDT by Coleus
click here to read article
The law of unintended consequences bites the enviro-wackos in the ass.
watch out - some here are still shilling for ethanol, citing tired old lines that have been proven false.
Many farmers are already using bio-diesel in their equipment.
Only for PR purposes when the TV cameras are running. ADM uses fossil fuels internally in their plants to process ethanol.
The solution is and always has been nuclear power. Clean, efficient, and not dependent on mid east lunatics...
Anyone who spends time Freeping shouldn’t be shocked by this.
51 cents, of every gallon of Ethanol produced, in the United States, comes from the American taxpayer, excluding crop subsidies. I should have jumped on this business when I had a chance.
For electricity, yes.
Has it ever occured to you that there are gasoline/oil subsidies? What do you Suppose it costs to keep a carrier at the strait of Hormuz everyday? Further, corn costs $2 in 1950, and $2 just a couple years ago. Tell me what hasn’t gone up in price in the last 50 years or so, and get back to me. I’m just sayin’.
The corn that is used for ethanol loses hardly any value as feed, they are called DDG, or distillers dried grain.
According to Isaac Asimov, it’s also good for powering robots and spaceships...hehe
I’ve seen estimates of the impact that higher corn prices actually have on other foodstuffs, and most of the estimates you read (like this one) are grossly exaggerated.
Makes a convenient excuse to raise prices, though.
That we're more efficient in farming techniques doesn't surprise me. That we continue to subsidize any grain at all is just shocking to me. That we not only do that, but subsidize the cost of a process that results in a net loss of energy, then I object.
As for carriers, thankfully they run on nukes, and jets, yes, fuel, but then again, we don't have a carrier there because we're buying fuels, we have a carrier there because of a wacked out religion that wants to kill us because we give them money.
I think you only get a 20% energy return on ethanol, where as, you get 90% or more with gasoline.
Here's a few truisms..
It costs more to produce it than you get out of it
It only gets about 85% of the efficiency of gasoline
It makes your "check engine" light come on
Here is the real dark side: according to recent reports from Mexico, blue agave plants are being uprooted in favor of planting corn for ethanol. Blue agave = tequila = margarita!!!! Oh, the huge man-a-tee!!!!!
I am anti-ethanol.. but I agree with you that there should be an estimate of the increased military cost of helping to get secure oil supplies.. and that should be put on as a gas tax, at least on imported oil.. and an equal and opposite reduction in income tax.
That is not true. Burn ethanol, and you get CO2.
Ethanol's supporters really have very little science to stand on. In their wildest dreams, they believe it helps reduce some sorts of tailpipe emissions, but not CO2, to my recollection. They think ethanol reduces demand for foreign oil, but the most optimistic estimates are that production of one gallon of ethanol only takes 3/4 gallon of diesel to produce, not a very effective reduction in oil demand.
Ethanol is a sop. A sop to farmers who love increased demand (and therefore prices) for what they can grow on their dirt. Ethanol is a sop to the mushy brained who want to feel environmentally friendly. Side effects, though are many. It would take a book to debunk all the BS associated with ethanol. The feel-good crop-o-crap of the decade.
Check out the current stock price of the company that makes BioWillie. Willie has lost about 50 big ones in the deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.