Posted on 08/01/2007 10:55:22 AM PDT by finnman69
The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.
Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to f*ck off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."
This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullsh*t. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollingstone.com ...
Rolling Stone should talk...they are using non recyclable paper for their magazine now.
Well, you just need a small pebble bed reactor, really. Just a couple small pebbles will do. If you’re willing to go drive around with a reactor. May have to drive a hummer-size vehicle, but, hey, you won’t have to actually buy gas.
BUT - if we could remove the oil as the main electricity generator it would go a long way towards reducing overall oil needs.
Not that I care/believe a word the enviro-Mullahs like
al-Gore preach.
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."That's wierd, we still have to import foreign oil to run the machines that generate the ethanol....Scientists at UC Berkeley and Cornell have calculated that it takes 1.4 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol Other experts dispute this but not definitively. Corn farmers use more fertilizers and pesticides than any other crop to raise it, and this produces both air and water pollution. The resulting run-off has destroyed much of the marine life in the Gulf of Mexico. UC Berkeley's Alexander Farrell found that corn ethanol reduces emissions by just 13%. more here http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/corn_ethanol_hype.html So I guess as long as his farmers keep on getting subsidies, and bring in more profit, its goood, good, good!
There are ethanol plants going up everywhere, and most estimates have ethanol production at double the current level in two and a half years. We are currently buying 30% of our petroleum from countries at war with us, so by my math, ethanol will soon get us half-way to the point we could theoretically eliminate OPEC purchases of oil. I realize that corn-ethanol cannot possibly supply all our liquid fuel needs, but if combined with bio-diesel, methanol, and perhaps hydrogen, an awful lot of our problem with Middle Eastern terrorists could be solved by making what they sell less valuable TO US.
If we were to eliminate the import tariff on ethanol, we might even get some help from other countries that AREN'T at war with us.
In addition, if the technical glitches involved in making cellulosic ethanol (made from waste) a viable commercial product were solved, then a lot more petroleum COULD be eliminated, and we would have corn-ethanol to thank for paving the way.
re: #13
Wgat a wild idea? The demos woulld never catch up on their laundry bills if we did that.
I am definitely pro-nukes, but I don't think it's the ONLY solution. Solar, tidal, wind, etc. can be nice supplements to a nuclear backbone.
I try to avoid ethanol—primarily because I don’t want to support the political scam.
No, but they will replace fossil-fuel fired electric plants, which will dramatically reduce domestic oil demand.
Ethanol is an acceptable substitute to gasoline as far as I am concerned.
Rudy Giullani : Leading America Toward Energy Independence
Ethanol and other bio-fuels are already helping America move toward energy independence. But it is embarrassing that Brazil is so far ahead of America in the use of ethanol. It should be the other way around. Seventy percent of the new cars sold in Brazil can use ethanol. In the United States there's only a very small percentage. In Brazil you can pull up to most gas stations and get ethanol. That's not the case in the United States. Our goal has to be more growth in ethanol. Because every percentage that we increase our use of ethanol, we reduce our reliance on foreign oil from volatile areas of the world.
Ethanol is a crappy fuel all the way 'round. Why this nation is letting itself be suckered on this ''solution'' is utterly beyond me.
Nuclear power could replace all stationary power plants which now burn petroleum such as home heating oil, electrical generating plants, or any industrial plant which uses petrol for power, thus leaving liquid petroleum for transportation such as a Durango.
Rudy wants the votes of Iowa farmers and campaign cash from ADM.
L
Lots of misinfo on ethanol around and dont know who can sort it all out. I found this basic info which does a decent job of talking about it at an elementary level, faults and all.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm
Lots of misinfo on ethanol around and dont know who can sort it all out. I found this basic info which does a decent job of talking about it at an elementary level, faults and all.
Brazilk fuels it entire fleet on the stuff so there must be hope.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm
Lots of misinfo on ethanol around and dont know who can sort it all out. I found this basic info which does a decent job of talking about it at an elementary level, faults and all.
Brazil fuels it entire fleet on the stuff so there must be hope.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm
So does Duncan Hunter favor increasing ethanol subsidies, as do the rest of the GOP nominees except Ron Paul who wants to grow hemp for ethanol.
I'm not happy about the pushing of ethanol.
Brazil has a climate that is well-suited for growing sugar cane, which in turn is well-suited for making ethanol.
To grow sugar cane in this country takes protectionism. And corn is poorly suited for making ethanol, as the article noted.
Put it this way.
Worst nuclear accident ever was Chernobyl. The worst possible result. Total deaths directly attributed = 56.
Potential deaths in a collapse of the Yangtsee river dam in china = 1 million
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.