Good, Bad, Ugly?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
corn ethanol BAD!!! And ugly. One of worst idea ever and partially responsible for starvation all over the world. Also, not all that sustainable. Get the ethanol from bacteria and algae if you must but you don't burn food.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Thoughts?
first thought:
'fact checking articles = good'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
not a dig or anything either, I just .. am full of puzzlement over what's going on here in the article
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well a friend linked it to me and he's reading roughly the same information over several different articles, I just asked for just one for the sake of linking it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: corn ethanol BAD!!! And ugly. One of worst idea ever and partially responsible for starvation all over the world. Also, not all that sustainable. Get the ethanol from bacteria and algae if you must but you don't burn food.
This.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ethanol has been a bad move from the first, in almost every way. It just doesn't make sense. I don't see anything about Obama being a particular proponent of this bill, but there's definitely a group of supporting Senators. This is the worst sort of localism, though: benefiting local farmers to the detriment of both other people in their district and people everywhere else in the US (not to mention elsewhere in the world).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well a friend linked it to me and he's reading roughly the same information over several different articles, I just asked for just one for the sake of linking it.
Right but while I'd like to discuss the stupidity of an 85% corn ethanol gas mandate, the article is doing everything in its power to warn me off trusting anything it says at face value.
Look at the obama head with money raining down on it.
quote:The Obama administration is look to "make it rain" for corn farmers, though the rest of Americans may end up footing the bill. (Source: Red Dog Report)
The entire article is also classified as a 'blog' for one guy. He does not appear to be a professional political, science, or energy commentator, so
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
IS it actually a "corn ethanol mandate" or just an "ethanol mandate." Going by the bill text that was linked http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.+187: I don't see anything specific about corn in which case, mass import of sugar cane ethanol might actually be acceptable.
(Or maybe its implicit because of some trade barrier I don't know about)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This looks like really bad reporting, and it looks like misrepresentation in the OP. It would mandate E85 vehicles, but not fuel production. They can't do that, there'd be too many vehicles on the road for a couple decades, and longer, that wouldn't be able to take it. They'd try to increase it, and by forcing them to build the vehicles, try to create demand, but the pricing likely wouldn't work the way they'd life.
While it might not mandate corn ethanol, it certainly seems like that's the direction they're headed for, especially given the farm state sponsors of the bill. Corn ethanol is the devil. Not only do I not support more money for it, I'm all for cutting what support their is.
On the other hand, non-food source ethanol, like algae and perhaps cellulosic, shows incredible promise, both from an environmental point of view, and from the view of reducing global food prices. If they can get it to work on a mass scale in the next few years, I'd have no problem putting money into it to accelerate the process.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:On the other hand, non-food source ethanol, like algae and perhaps cellulosic, shows incredible promise, both from an environmental point of view, and from the view of reducing global food prices. If they can get it to work on a mass scale in the next few years, I'd have no problem putting money into it to accelerate the process.
Until maybe it turns out that getting ethanol out of those at industrial scales also isn't efficient. Maybe it will be, maybe it won't be. Or there are engines that can be even more effective than ethanol powered ones, but only on less mucky fuels (ethanol fuel has significantly lower MPG).
Go ahead and throw some research dollars at those avenues, sure, but anything more than that is nothing but political grandstanding likely to cost real dollars later (just like corn ethanol was), and if they turn out to be so effective with research, it won't be necessary to make such mandates.
Of course, even the whole targeted research thing is silliness that isn't necessary in the least with a proper carbon credit (or carbon tax) system.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I would love it if we could get rid of the 10% ethanol we've got in the gas now. I was asking my mechanic if I was crazy or if I was getting fewer miles out of each tank because of it. He said he's had to discourage people from getting tune ups thinking there was something wrong with their cars when it's just the gas not buring as well.
Because apparently the environment needs me to use more fuel to drive the same miles. That'll fix everything. Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
The thread title is inaccurate. No one is advocating that all fuels be 85% ethanol; people are advocating mandating that auto engines be ABLE TO USE an 85% ethanol fuel.
My engines are ABLE TO USE 93 octane premium fuel; I don't have to buy it and my engines are also still quite capable of using 87 octane regular.
Read carefully and save yourself consternation.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Its the stupid light bulbs all over again.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The thread title is inaccurate. No one is advocating that all fuels be 85% ethanol; people are advocating mandating that auto engines be ABLE TO USE an 85% ethanol fuel.
A significant additional cost and constraint to engine design as a political sop to corn producers (and an obvious first step towards increases in the required use of E85, since right now E85 doesn't make any sense for consumers except by mandate); there's plenty of reason for consternation at the Senators in question.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:On the other hand, non-food source ethanol, like algae and perhaps cellulosic, shows incredible promise, both from an environmental point of view, and from the view of reducing global food prices. If they can get it to work on a mass scale in the next few years, I'd have no problem putting money into it to accelerate the process.
Until maybe it turns out that getting ethanol out of those at industrial scales also isn't efficient. Maybe it will be, maybe it won't be. Or there are engines that can be even more effective than ethanol powered ones, but only on less mucky fuels (ethanol fuel has significantly lower MPG).
Go ahead and throw some research dollars at those avenues, sure, but anything more than that is nothing but political grandstanding likely to cost real dollars later (just like corn ethanol was), and if they turn out to be so effective with research, it won't be necessary to make such mandates.
Of course, even the whole targeted research thing is silliness that isn't necessary in the least with a proper carbon credit (or carbon tax) system.
I'm confused. Normally this is where you disagree with me, but we appear to have said the exact same thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Its the stupid light bulbs all over again.
It's actually nothing like that at all.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Its the stupid light bulbs all over again.
It's actually nothing like that at all.
Close enough for me. Costs more, and potentially worse for the environment. What am I missing?
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Ethanol is a sacred cow. Oppose ethanol subsidies and lose the Iowa Caucus on Jan 3rd. Lose the Iowa caucus and spend the next few weeks explaining why you should be President even though the heartland voters have rejected you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Costs more, and potentially worse for the environment.
I want to know how you define how it is 'potentially worse' for the environment in this case.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Its the stupid light bulbs all over again.
It's actually nothing like that at all.
Close enough for me. Costs more, and potentially worse for the environment. What am I missing?
Yeah, to echo Samp, how are you defining worse for the environment?
And furthermore, the up front costs might be more, but you save more in the long run, unlike these engines, which cost more up front, and then you save nothing with the fuel. I see why you want to say it's the same, but it's really not.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)