Posted on 12/11/2006 8:28:31 AM PST by Flavius
>>>It costs more in fuel to make ethanol than it releases.<<<
More bullsh*t. You should take a moment to learn about what you are talking about. Because that statement alone proves you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to ehtanol.
"With modern farming methods the topsoil is not depleted."
Not at all? That's amazing to me. What about crop rotation? Have you gotten around that too, so that you can grow the same thing year after year in the same plot?
I dont know what fuels your prejudice, but it is not sound scientific or economic facts.
I challenge you to come to the Great Plains from where ever you are, and tour some of the modern plants and attempt to debate the scientists and economists that are making them profitable.
Me either. But can't the ethanol blended fuel run in todays car? I remember it being available and I used it in my 79 Caprice when I was in college many, many moons ago.. (the 80's)
Ethanol is higher octane, lower energy density, lower sulfur pollution, and lower particulate emissions. Ethanol-gasoline mixes have a problem with the ethanol raising the volatility of the gasoline, leading to more hydrocarbon vapors.
It's a mixed bag, as far as fuels go.
As far as economics go, it's still expensive. That's partly tech based and partly infrastructure-based. For example, you can't pump ethanol through many pipelines because you can't readily separate ethanol from water like you can with oil, and the materials used in the pipelines and pumps often aren't ethanol-compatable.
As far as production tech goes, it's also a mixed bag. All of the studies I've run into except those by one person (Pimental) show a net energy positive. Of course, whether it's net energy positive or not isn't important. Worst case, you burn a bunch of coal to produce ethanol, since you can't shove coal in your gas tank (but we have hundreds of years supply -- it's really an undervalued natural resource of ours). What matters is how much it costs to produce and deliver it to market.
Anyways, back to my original point: if we can A) produce it without increasing our oil imports, and B) use it to reduce our oil imports, it'll be a nice way to cut funding to terrorist states that want to kill us all -- at least until we can get better fuels.
>>>But can't the ethanol blended fuel run in todays car?<<<
Yes. 10% blends can run in anything. And 85% blends can run in late model vehicles equipped to do so.
The fuel in the burner for a chafing dish is denatured alcohol (good old 113 octane ethanol). At your company's Christmas party, substitute gasoline for the ethanol and see if anyone eats the food.
the only reason they are close to profitable is that they are freaking subsidized.
It shocks and saddens me that people on a conservative site can be either so blind or so dumb to the truth.
>>>At your company's Christmas party, substitute gasoline for the ethanol and see if anyone eats the food.<<<
Good one. :)
Well said, Post #3.
>>>It shocks and saddens me that people on a conservative site can be either so blind or so dumb to the truth.<<<
I'm shocked at you too. And saddened. Deeply. :)
where did you learn your debating technique - air america radio?
it is a known, but hidden fact (by the ethanol lobby and pro-ethanol groups) that ethanol blend is dirtier than gas. In fact,the wisconsin epa did a study because of a proposed statewide ethanol mandate. They found that the increased use of ethanol in the state would require more clean air restrictions. See for yourself if you care to learn, or keep making snarky, nonsensical comments if you just want to remain ignorant.
http://www.hamilton-consulting.com/updates/docs/dnr_final_e10revised_090805.pdf
The funny thing is that the automobile was responsible for a major improvement in the cleanliness of American cities.
Before any one goes out and buys a horse, you need to consider ALL the costs. This is especially true for those living in areas with lots of enviro-nazis. They will not take kindly to your animal's excretions (the major source of pollution that the auto cleaned up). You will find a horse to be considerably more expensive in terms of time and money than an auto.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Google on "air quality and ethanol" and then go buy me a nice present as a way of apologizing.
As I commented in my last post, ethanol in gasoline blends increases the volatility of gasoline. This leads to more hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, which leads to a greater ozone risk. Note that this doesn't apply to pure ethanol, and doesn't apply as much to E-85.
However, ozone is just one kind of pollution. Other kinds of pollution that gasoline combustion deals with include:
* Nitrogen oxides
* Carbon monoxide
* Particulate matter
* Sulfur compounds
To reduce the first three, it is generally mandated that gasoline have an additive that provides oxygen in the fuel. Traditionally, this has been MBTE. However, requiring MBTE took the same sort of "only examine one problem" view that you espouse. They only looked at air pollution, but ignored a major problem of MBTE:
* MBTE contaminates water.
Ethanol doesn't. So, while an additive is generally needed for gasoline mixes to reduce more serious air pollution risks, you have to choose between whether you'd rather have a small amount of ground ozone increase or water contamination.
me? You and the other so called conservates are blinded by, hell, I don't know, personal interest or plain ignorance. Ethanol sucks as a fuel source. E10 contributes to air pollution
http://www.hamilton-consulting.com/updates/docs/dnr_final_e10revised_090805.pdf
And it must be subsidized to be remotely attractive.
The support for ethanol is not a conservative position. Subsidies are not a conservative position. Promoting inefficient use of resources is not a conservative position. Taxing a better fuel to support an inferior fuel is not a conservative position. Mandating use of ethanol is not a conservative idea.
But all those things are done by people like you - and they still think they are conservative. Conservatives respect the free market and freedom and choice. That is something the ethonal lobby hates - because if people had a free choice in the matter, they would not subsidize or buy ethanol.
I can see your interest - you're in a state that benefits most from being an ethanol parasite. But again, if iowa was primary #50, nobody would take your little inefficient fuel seriously. Be honest with yourself -that's the only reason anyone gives a damn about it. Oh, and ADM buys politicians to get a boatload of subsidies from everyone else's pocket.
This country is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's because of people like you who refuse to recognize the truth if it goes against their own agenda.
Just wondering, how much is the yearly subsidy for Ethanol production?
You sound like a disciple of David Pimentel of Cornell University and Tad Patzek of the University of California, Berkeley - both of whom have bend resoundingly discredited in their conclusions. Both of whom are left-wing nut jobs.
>>>This country is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's because of people like you who refuse to recognize the truth if it goes against their own agenda.<<<
Same to you.
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.