An as yet unpublished report from Ottawa, Canada, suggests that there is absolutely no ecological advantage to using ethanol blends in cars versus conventional unleaded gasoline.
Think this will make headlines here in America?
Regardless of the answer, the Canadian Broadcasting Company reported on Friday (video available here, emphasis added throughout):
An unpublished federal report appears to undermine the belief that commercially available ethanol-blended fuel produces cleaner emissions than regular gasoline.
The piece marvelously continued:
Scientists at Environment Canada studied four vehicles of recent makes, testing their emissions in a range for driving conditions and temperatures.
“Looking at tailpipe emissions, from a greenhouse gas perspective, there really isn't much difference between ethanol and gasoline," said Greg Rideout, head of Environment Canada's toxic emissions research.
"Our results seemed to indicate that with today's vehicles, there's not a lot of difference at the tailpipe with greenhouse gas emissions."
Shocking. Think Katie, Brian, and Charles will do such a report anytime soon?
While you ponder, read on:
The study found no statistical difference between the greenhouse gas emissions of regular unleaded fuel and 10 per cent ethanol blended fuel.
Although the study found a reduction in carbon monoxide, a pollutant that forms smog, emissions of some other gases, such as hydrocarbons, actually increased under certain conditions.
Amazing. Ethanol blends could actually release MORE hydrocarbons into the air? Shocking.
Bill Rees, an ecology professor at the University of British Columbia and longtime opponent of ethanol, has read the report and thinks Canadians need to know its conclusions.
"I must say, I'm a little surprised at that, because it seems to fly in the face of current policy initiatives," he said.
"People are being conned into believing in a product and paying for it through their tax monies when there's no justifiable benefit and indeed many negative costs."
Hmmm. Seems the con is universal.
Now, consider just how detrimental to America this is if it turns out to be true. After all, given the federal government's ethanol blend requirements during the summer, gasoline prices are significantly higher than they should be.
Furthermore, as a result of the dramatically increased demand for corn, corn prices have skyrocketed across the world making all foods using this commodity much more expensive.
As such, this con -- if it indeed is the case that ethanol blends are not any cleaner -- has done nothing but cost Americans and people across the globe moneys that could have been spent elsewhere.
Isn't that special?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Dumping my corn futures as we
April 3, 2007 - 11:02 ET by MightyMouthDumping my corn futures as we speak.....
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Add to this the amount of fos
April 3, 2007 - 11:11 ET by GalvanicAdd to this the amount of fossil-fuel that has to be burned to produce ethanol. I saw a figure about 10 years ago that for every 1 gal. of ethanol produced, it took 1.2 gal. of petroleum.
Have the ethanol producers gotten more efficient?
Good point ,I almost forgot a
April 3, 2007 - 11:26 ET by Quidnunc SavantGood point ,I almost forgot about how inefficient corn based ethanol was . The switch grass based is apparently more so, only because no seeding or tilling is needed every year.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
And as we all know by now f
April 3, 2007 - 11:42 ET by sarcasmoAnd as we all know by now from the unbiased news media & our perfect politicians, other choices for biomass fuel simply do not exist....(After all, the Creator of All Things occasionally created a few politically-incorrect mistakes, and our holy political leaders need to fix all of His mistakes!)
JMR
The only problem sith switchg
April 3, 2007 - 12:00 ET by tpmintxThe only problem sith switchgrass-based ethanol production is that they have been trying to do this since the 20's, but there has been no industrial-level success yet.
Brazil uses sugarcane pretty effectively, because sugarcane actually GROWS there. Sugarcane does not grow in the US. (Well, maybe in Hawaii!)
Corn is a lousy feedstock for Ethanol.
Don't forget Florida, we drai
April 3, 2007 - 12:23 ET by dscottDon't forget Florida, we drained part of the Everglades to grow sugar cane. The lowly sugar beat is also very high in sugar, greater than cane, I can't think of a more fitting use for this foul tasting root.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Florida's "Big Sugar&q
April 3, 2007 - 12:29 ET by sarcasmoFlorida's "Big Sugar" can't compete in the worldwide sugar marketplace -- they're impotent in the face of Brazil's efficiency & productivity. That's why they buy so many "major" party politicians. Sugar subsidies (which mostly hurt poor people) are an untold scandal, IMO. But as I keep saying, politicians are holy, and unlike God, politicians don't make mistakes (see above). They're perfect!
JMR
Any subsidies usally hurt mor
April 3, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Quidnunc SavantAny subsidies usally hurt more people than they help but sugar prices have been so artificially high in this country for so long that it has driven out and hurt many businesses (candy , chocolate) that couldn't use high fructose corn syrup as a replacement(soda,baking). Of course the consumer ultimatly pays the price for all subsidies. (not to mention all the job loses )
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
tpxAt the moment sugarcane is
April 3, 2007 - 13:48 ET by upcountrywatertpx
At the moment sugarcane is grown only on Maui.. The stalks (bagasse) is burned in the mill to sell electricity to Maui county, been doing that sense 1982.
The power plants also burn coal, fuel oil and wood chips if available.
DENIER!
April 3, 2007 - 11:12 ET by RJNOEL, I'M SHOCKED. HOW COULD YOU, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE POST THIS? YOU'RE OBVOUSLY JUST A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER!
But, but, but, the Brazilians
April 3, 2007 - 11:17 ET by dscottBut, but, but, the Brazilians are running a mostly ethanol based fuel system. So are we saying their emissions problems have not changed or improved???
So we are back to the electric car... I sure hope those Lithium Ion batteries will do the job.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Brazil uses sugar cane-based
April 4, 2007 - 03:14 ET by KimberlyBrazil uses sugar cane-based Ethanol. The only reason I remember this is that it was actually a "detour" on The Amazing Race one year--teams had to press enough sugar canes to get enough juice to be exchanged for fermented juice that is distilled into Ethanol. They then had to add that Ethanol to their car before driving to their next task.
However, as has been pointed out, Ethanol not only isn't as efficient as gasoline as an engine fuel, but it actually consumes energy (which often comes from the consumption of fossel fuels) to get made. Gotta love the alternate fuel crowd.
Interesting results but, this
April 3, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Quidnunc SavantInteresting results but, this was done with 10% ethanol blend not the 15%-20% found in the US not to mention E85%.
It makes no difference anyway because if you processed every bit of corn produced in this country into ethanol you would only supplant 20% of the gasoline.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
I'd say a completely expected
April 3, 2007 - 13:37 ET by taznarI'd say a completely expected result. The ethanol percentage won't change anything.
If you completely burn hydrocarbons (including ethanol) you get CO2 and water. That's it. And they're both greenhouse gasses. When people say ethanol "burns cleaner" they mean it burns more completely, leaving few partial products such as carbon monoxide (CO). One of the primary purposes of the catalytic converter on an automobile is to convert CO (a pollutant) to CO2 (considered a non-pollutant in years gone by). So if the catalyitic convertors are working as expected, why would there be a difference?
No surprises, just marketing speak gone amuk.
Very good points. Especiall
April 3, 2007 - 13:39 ET by steviep831Very good points. Especially your second one. I had considered buying an E85 SUV recently until I started digging a little deeper. However, I am still considering the car as it also has the ability to shut off 4 of the 8 cylinders during certain conditions... But I obviously want to be as informed as possible. Still researching it.
Third World is already compla
April 3, 2007 - 11:22 ET by Cool ArrowThird World is already complaining we are diverting their food into our gas tanks.
And then there's the energy expenditure in producing Ethanol.
Put Iowa Caucus in the back of the pack and leave it there. It's gotten to the point you can't be President unless you worship at the altar of ethanol.
Since when is it their food i
April 3, 2007 - 11:29 ET by dscottSince when is it their food if it is produced in the US???? It's ours to do as we please. Of course, the increasing price of corn does wipe out the price support subsidy to farmers, so that's not a bad thing for the tax payers. Agricultural subsidies have been dropping in the budget for a few years.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
The upward pressure on world
April 3, 2007 - 11:47 ET by Quidnunc SavantThe upward pressure on world prices as a result of demand for grain based ehthanol makes the food prices unreachable even in their own countries.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
But the Time article of 51 id
April 3, 2007 - 12:38 ET by dscottBut the Time article of 51 ideas to fight Global Warming told us to turn food into fuel. Is the MSM contradicting itself??? I'm sooooo confused. <sarcasim on> I guess some poor people have to starve for our energy independence???? Population control measure number 25.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Ha. Then I am adhering to o
April 3, 2007 - 13:47 ET by steviep831Ha. Then I am adhering to one of the ideas to fight GW. I am actually converting food into fuel as we speak... Don't you love lunch?
Third World is already compla
April 3, 2007 - 13:51 ET by taznarOf course this corn would otherwise be going to feed livestock or not grown at all. An interesting side note is that corn by itself doesn't have a high enough protein content to optimal in "fattening up" livestock. But when the sugar and starch from corn is turned into ethanol, one is left with a substance which is very high in protein that can be used as a protein supplement in feed. That side of the equation is often forgotten in discussions on the economical viability of using corn for ethanol -there is more than one end product.
Third world complaining
April 3, 2007 - 21:15 ET by nkviking75In the first place, the third world has learned to blame all of its problems on the US, whether we deserve it or not. In the second place, economics is working as one would expect. There is expected to be a huge increase in the amount of corn planted this year in the US. Barring a major drought or some other factor that would cut yield, there will be more corn available by fall, and prices will drop sometime this summer.
I haven't seen any study that accounts for the rapid increase in production capacity for ethanol. I wonder what that will do to efficiency.
Wait a minute!There must be
April 3, 2007 - 11:36 ET by MightyMouthWait a minute!
There must be hard science behind the use of Ethanol, right? I mean it can't be politically based, such as... oh say...Global Warming? Right?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
rain forests are being cut down to produce palm oil for ethanol
April 3, 2007 - 12:40 ET by RJOne of the most ironic things about this feel good junk science is that rain forests are being cut down to produce palm oil for ethanol.
Oil independence...
April 3, 2007 - 11:44 ET by heldmywI don't recall emissions being part of the equation before this anyway! I thought the point was to reduce oil dependence and make us more self-sufficient.
Oil companies can't be happy at the prospect of a 20% reduction in their sales if ethanol is maxed out by commercial producers, but they have to be terrified of the 'home brewer", converting vegetable waste to X number of gallons of fuel-grade alcohol in a hot water heater-sized still...
At $3+ a gallon, I'd take a stab at it. Might be fun!
I mean, we all have garbage, and there is a certain deliciousness to the idea of running my car on my trash (that isn't going to the local landfill, too! Al Gore? Are you listening?).
THAT would be a body blow for big oil, and one that they'll probably fight tooth and nail.
I don't recall emissions bein
April 3, 2007 - 14:41 ET by taznarThey always have been -but it was carbon monoxide that was the evil gas and CO2 was good. Burning ethanol produced less carbon monoxide. In many ways, better engines and catalytic convertors have mooted that benefit. The possiblity that it could reduce dependency on foreign oil was seen as icing on the cake.
Emissions were not the reason
April 3, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Indiana JoeEmissions were not the reason for the original addition of ethanol to gasoline. I burned "gasohol" in my car in the late '70s/early '80s. It was everywhere. The car actually got worse mileage with the blend, so I would look for pumps NOT labeled "Contains 10% alchohol." They weren't easy to find.
And the sole reason for this was to save gasoline and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Emissions were not "part of the equation."
Besides, catalytic converters preceded the "gasohol" craze by several years. They're why unleaded gas was created, and they were aimed at emissions. But not "gasohol."
And lead (I was going to sa
April 3, 2007 - 15:24 ET by sarcasmoAnd lead (I was going to say "unlike CO2" here, but lately I've been reconsidering...) makes people even-more stupid than they already-are, so doing something to limit particles of lead in the air is probably one of the few government actions on the environmental front I can support. And IMO it's something that would have naturally happened, possibly via something like class action lawsuits in the federal courts instead of an expensive, Nixonian big-government agency, in a freer market than we had back-then (which, while better than the hellholes of most of the rest of the world, wasn't-very!). Yes, this requires sensible judges, but those are a better bet than sensible EPA bureaucrats.
JMR
"...doing something to l
April 3, 2007 - 19:54 ET by Indiana Joe"...doing something to limit particles of lead in the air is probably one of the few government actions on the environmental front I can support."
Ah, but the reason lead was removed from gas is because it clogged catalytic converters. I agree, spewing lead into the air sounds like a really stupid thing to do. And eliminating it probably was a good environmental move. But it was a purely ancillary effect; lead was eliminated to protect the converters, not for any health reasons (at the time).
One "unintended consequence" of environmentalism that was actually a good thing!
I guess my memory of the time
April 3, 2007 - 15:58 ET by taznarI guess my memory of the time is different than yours. I remember it being billed to reduce CO production. And even though I lived in the midwest at the time, where gasohol was really pushed, I never had trouble finding gas without ethanol. What did get to be hard was finding "regular" (leaded) gas for the old car I drove.
Well, I was (and am) in the M
April 3, 2007 - 16:51 ET by Indiana JoeWell, I was (and am) in the Midwest, but near Chicago. That may have had something to do with the prominence of "gasohol" around here. Also, I looked for the cheapest gas... IIRC, most of the major brands were 100% gas, but were more expensive, naturally.
And they'd even pump it for you! <sigh> ;^)
The main attraction of ethano
April 3, 2007 - 11:50 ET by dan708The main attraction of ethanol is that it might wean us off of foreign oil. If we can ever get to the point that we only need our domestic oil, ethanol will be doing its job.
I say the main attraction i
April 3, 2007 - 12:03 ET by sarcasmoI say the main attraction is corn subsidies and various other political pork, because nature & physics seem to both say ethanol's not the way to reduce foreign oil dependance and can't do the job it (politically) took via bipartisan "affirmative action." As I said above, since our politicians know best for all of us, obviously God does occasionally create mistakes -- good thing we have big government to fix 'em when He does, eh?
JMR
"The main attraction of
April 3, 2007 - 12:31 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"The main attraction of ethanol is that it might wean us off of foreign oil. If we can ever get to the point that we only need our domestic oil, ethanol will be doing its job."
Might is not compelling enough for me, nor should it be for America's taxpayers.
From what I've read even if we converted all of the nation's corn crop to ethanol, we would still have to import oil, it wouldn't even come close to substantially reducing imports. The only chance we have of "weaning" ourselves off of foreign oil is to drill in ANWR, off-shore, and anywhere else in our territories and to build more and modern U.S. refineries. We have the reserves, we just aren't using them. If we tap our own oil reserves we WILL be able to reduce/eliminate our dependency on foreign oil.
Ethanol is a tremendous waste of a food resource, time, and money. It is not worth it.
The differences between might and will are substantial, and Congress needs to hear our voices on this issue.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Ethanol is a tremendous waste
April 3, 2007 - 14:08 ET by taznarActually, growing corn to be fed to livestock so we can eat meat is the biggest waste of a food product. But I like a good steak now and then...
At this point, I think its too early to tell if its worth it or not. Even reducing oil use by a small percentage would have a major impact not only on our dependency on the whims of other countries, but also impact the price of oil. Having ethanol as a "threat" sets an upper limit on the price of a barrel of oil. In fact, one of the "fears" you often hear for investors in ethanol is that if it gets too succesful, the oil companies can easily drop the price of oil and bankrupt the ethanol industry.
How can you say it's too earl
April 3, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveHow can you say it's too early to tell whether it is worth it or not?
The ONLY reason the ethanol companies are not bankrupt right now is because of the subsidies they are getting from our tax dollars.
That fact alone tells me ethanol is not worth it.
Feed the corn to livestock...don't seek after the Holy Grail of energy independence through bankrupt ethanol when we already sit on an energy solution with the billions upon billions of barrels of crude oil within our own territories. Crude is cheap...it is proven...it is readily available.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Its too early because questio
April 3, 2007 - 16:23 ET by taznarIts too early because questions remain.
What will the cost savings be (if any) when scaling up production?
How much more efficient (both cost and resource -wise) can we be in ethanol production?
What will be the price of oil in 10 years? 20?
What would even a 5% reduction in oil imports do to oil prices in the global market?
You're right, it isn't cost-effective now. But if oil goes to $70-80 a barrel as it did last summer and stays there, it will be.
You're also right that ethanol companies are currently existing on subsidies. That often happens when a new industry enters the picture. That doesn't mean the new industry is not worth the investment. At least for now, I think its woth it. If it doesn't look like its going anywhere in a couple years and oil prices remain low, I'll change my mind. I just don't like the fact that we're still as dependent on oil imports now as we were in the 70s durng the last "crisis" (what happened to those nuclear power plants that were going to save us?).
With regard to the US sitting on its own oil fields, I also agree. On the other hand, imagine down the road when the Middle East is pumped dry, the world needs oil, and the US is sitting on the biggest untapped supplies remaining. Talk about strategic reserves... Then again, when I was in grade school I seem to remember being told we would run out of oil in 2010 or thereabouts.
If ethanol is a sound inves
April 3, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"It is too early..."
If ethanol is a sound investment, private investors would finance the R&D without taxpayer subsidies...corporations all over the world do it various products every day, those that don't pan out or are otherwise impractical lose investors. Ethanol (as fuel) has been produced since at least 1980 in the U.S., how much more time do we need? You said "if it doesn't look like its going anywhere in a couple years and oil prices remain low, I'll change my mind." So, we've had at least 27 years and it still isn't practical nor profitable and oil prices in the U.S. are still lower than the majority of the world...are you changing your mind? Taxpayer subsidies are never worth it. Additionally subsidies tend to continue perpetually.
Nuclear power is a sore subject with me. Environmentalism and scare tactics (especially in the reporting of Three Mile Island and later Chernobyl) are the biggest reasons we don't have nuclear power on a larger scale. We should have a nuclear power program as good or better than the one France has (80% of their power is nuclear). This is the one area where we can learn a lesson from France (I still shudder at that idea of France teaching the U.S. a lesson). However, nuclear power wouldn't make the slightest dent in our oil use as only 2% of our electricity is generated by buring oil (10% from natural gas). Currently between 70 to 80% of our electricity is derived from coal-fired plants, so while nuclear power will not solve the "oil problem" it will reduce air pollution though.
"when the Middle East is pumped dry..."
Don't count on it. It is a common misconception that crude oil is a finite resource. The term "fossil fuel" is confusing to many people...they assume (or in some cases are misinformed) that crude oil is the entirely composed of the decomposed remains of dinosaurs. In reality it is the result of perpetual geological processes. Check out Thermal Depolymerization (TDP) it is a man-made technology that mimics the natural geological process. It looks promising in its own niche, but I think it will never become a viable replacement for crude oil. It may be a great way to recycle our wastes and to reduce the size of landfills. Last time I read up on it, they were not receiving subsidies and they were operating at a loss...if they can get more investors they may be able to turn a profit. The problem is that even with the required investment, they may find that while it is a great technology, it is not worth the costs even on a larger scale.
The best and proven solution to our "oil problem" is to drill and refine domestically. We have proven reserves...we are sitting on the solution thanks to our politicians and environmentalists.
The people that told you we would run out of oil in 2010 are they same people telling us we are going to fry the earth with CO2...I hope you don't believe that too.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Ironically, TDP might becom
April 3, 2007 - 23:31 ET by sarcasmoIronically, TDP might become viable if "free" heat from something like "pebble bed" nuclear reactors (being developed by the capitalist/communist Chinese, but sadly not being developed at all in the USA) were a component. I love the idea of getting fuel from turkey guts. I've always suspected the antinuke hysteria was at least partially funded by coal mining interests, but I've never found any definitive proof. Or disproof...
JMR
From what I've read the TDP
April 4, 2007 - 00:00 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveFrom what I've read the TDP is self sustaining, it just doesn't produce enough additional by products to be profitable yet. I hope it does become a profitable technology, it would be great to have a TDP plant at the local landfill to break down our trash into usable resources...kind of like an industrial compost pile.
I'm going to have to read up on "pebble bed" reactors.
I think the coal miners themselves are too busy working in the mines to generate any anti-nuke hysteria. From my research the environmental lobby and scare-mongering politicians aided by the mining unions were the two biggest things blocking nuclear power.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Miners work, yes, but union
April 4, 2007 - 00:19 ET by sarcasmoMiners work, yes, but unions (as you say) and mine owners (as I suspect) have time on their hands for political mischief, and their likely interests/political affiliations would make said mischief bipartisan. Those 2 sides' ability to pay-off only 2 parties' scare mongering politicians for results is yet another reason for the USA to have more viable political choices than just tax-&-spend or borrow-&-spend in the political marketplace. The much maligned Wikipedia has some good stuff on pebble bed reactors. No nuclear reactor design is malice-proof, but the history of accidents like TMI & Chernobyl indicates being stupid-proof would be a major improvement.
JMR
Corn is not just used for food
April 3, 2007 - 21:22 ET by nkviking75"Ethanol is a tremendous waste of a food resource..."
According to the Iowa Corn Growers Association, corn is used for more than food and ethanol. For a chart, click here. If we eliminated ethanol tomorrow, not all corn would be used for food. This winter some people used corn-burning stoves for heat.
Heck viking...Used for heat y
April 3, 2007 - 21:37 ET by bigtimerHeck viking...
Used for heat you say?
Why would anyone need that when we have GWing here!
LMAO!
Btw...Dairy producers say they are going to raise the price of milk a gallon by 60 cents because of the cost of the ethanol they are having to use....
Tell me again how this doesn't affect everyone...rich or poor...what a dumb nation we live in at times...of course we have the socialist news leading the way with their propaganda.
President Bush didn't help any today talking... once again about getting off of our oil addiction....I just shake my head anymore...
I give up.
I don't think ethanol is the answer
April 3, 2007 - 21:44 ET by nkviking75At best, ethanol is a stop gap measure. We need to be drilling our own domestic petroleum, increasing refining capacity, and clearing away the patchwork of laws that requires so many gasoline formulas, just to start. Generating electricity with nuclear plants would also help.
Don't expect corn prices to remain permanently higher. Demand will drive increased supply. It'll just take time.
You and I agree viking.You ha
April 3, 2007 - 21:58 ET by bigtimerYou and I agree viking.
You have been here long enough to know how I feel about our own oil dependency in this country...and Lord knows we have oodles and oodles of it.
I am so disgusted he President does not even mention drilling here anymore and being self-reliant...especially during the particular war.
Oil went down a dollar foutry five today...big f'n whoppee...it is to around 65 a barrel again.
Drill Often...Drill Everywhere! (thanks BD once again...lol!)
Question is...when will we?
I want to know how Thompson feels about this...I know how he voted in the Senate..but I do wonder what he will say on the campaign trail if he runs.
I love Duncan Hunter...a few others too...Tancredo, Romney...but I want to know what they will do to make us self-reliant...
More refineries....I agree totally with you about Nuclear too.
Ethanol is not the answer. It
April 3, 2007 - 22:16 ET by Clear thinkerEthanol is not the answer.
It takes over 2 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. But selling a lot more corn sounds great to the voters in Iowa.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Nonsense! I find lots of an
April 3, 2007 - 22:26 ET by NL207Nonsense! I find lots of answers in ethanol, particularly that derived from barley!
Ethanol came in to replace the last con-job - MTBE
April 3, 2007 - 11:55 ET by tpmintxPrior to last year, the EPA required many so-called non-attainment areas to use MTBE as an "oxygenate" which helps to cut down on carbon monoxide emissions. However, they don't tell us that CO is not really a problem in well-tuned cars and trucks. CO is a problem in high-altitude areas, in the winter. This is the reason that the concept of oxygenates was developed.
So now we have a fuel additive that was developed to solve a problem in Denver in the winter as a mandatory additive for "summer blend" gasoline?
How did this happen? Was there science involved, or just consensus?
Then we all found out that MTBE was highly carcinogenic, and did not degrade or break down when spilled into the environment. So they mandated Ethanol instead.
Ethanol was not introduced into our gasoline in order to save petroleum, it was introduced to cut down on pollution. Only it does not do this. It only makes it worse. CO does not contribute to smog. NOx does. Burning ethanol blended gas causes more NOx emission than pure gasoline.
Ethanol is a 100% pure farm-state vote-grabbing scam!
Maybe it's just me...I'm not
April 3, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMaybe it's just me...I'm not a scientist...but, wouldn't corn and corn products be more beneficial to the economy and to mankind as food products? Less processing means lower cost. More people in the world eat corn and it's other products on a much larger scale than people that would use ethanol in their cars. A person can throw a corn cob into a pot of boiling water or on a grill for a few minutes and have a tasty and nutritious side-dish. Livestock and poultry love corn, and it fattens them up nicely. Corn is the only vegetable many kids willingly eat.
So why are we wasting a valuable food crop to this junk science?
I'm guessing that the costs and the time involved in processing the corn stock into ethanol is many times more expensive and lengthy than the costs and time involved in packaging corn for culinary use/livestock fodder. In the summertime I can typically buy 5 or more cobs of corn at my local mega-mart for a dollar. I'm guessing that the amount of ethanol extracted from the same corn cobs cost a lot more than a dollar, which means when purchased as fuel it costs the consumer even more...if the government wasn't aggressively subsidising ethanol it would be more expensive than any consumer would be willing to pay.
So why are we wasting our time an tax money sacrificing an extremely valuable food crop for a financial loss?
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
One word Love Dr:POLITICS!!
April 3, 2007 - 12:21 ET by MightyMouthOne word Love Dr:
POLITICS!!!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Simple! Because big governmen
April 3, 2007 - 12:21 ET by sarcasmoSimple! Because big government is holy, and politicians don't make mistakes.
JMR
Iowa Caucus
April 3, 2007 - 12:24 ET by Cool ArrowIowa Caucus
Thanks guys(/gals?). My quest
April 3, 2007 - 12:42 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThanks guys(/gals?). My questions were rhetorical, but it is nice to see that people read my posts.
Speaking of Iowa...my brother-in-law lives there and was trying to preach to me the virtues of and salvation through ethanol. He wouldn't listen to anything I had to say in rebuttal...and he's not even in the corn business. He only parrots what he's been told...he hasn't done any of his own reading or research/thinking to form an honest opinion. It makes me wonder if he really is my wife's brother because she is exactly the opposite.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
dear mean gene
April 3, 2007 - 12:57 ET by tumbler_2007I've read a lot about Patton. He was known to tell all his subordinates and even the dogfaces on the eves of battle: "Do not take counsel of your fears." What a man!
Yeah, I've met a few dudes here in NB, similar in mind-set to your brother-in-law. It's seemed to me that all you see in him is what I discovered (sadly) in some otherwise fine folks here. It's merely human pride, their vainglorious egoes. You can rebut and you can restate; you can clarify every truth of your case. --But nothing will cause them to correct their hardened first impressions. Obstinacy isn't only seen on the Left. The Right is replete with stupefied and hidebound fanatics too.
Mean Gene, I spent 6 months
April 3, 2007 - 13:01 ET by John in CAMean Gene, I spent 6 months in Minnesota a couple of years ago. My buddy's in-laws are farmers, and according to him, by their account, there is nothing better than corn ethanol.
This whole corn ethanol movement is fueled by ADM (Archer, Daniels, Midland). The governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty, can't talk for five minutes without bringing it up. Norm Coleman was one of the Republican Senators who helped defeat the drilling in ANWR bill. He of course hid behind environmental concerns, which being from Minnesota, does provide him some cover. However, IMO, it had to do with the ethanol industry in Minnesota.
Just a note, Pawlenty has been mentioned quite often as a possible running mate for John McCain. Ugh! Just another reason not to vote for Maverick.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Contrary to popular belief,
April 3, 2007 - 13:56 ET by steviep831Contrary to popular belief, our country alone produces enough food to feed the world. There's no shortage of food in this world. Just a shortage of means to attaining that food.
Dear Dr., even more than that
April 3, 2007 - 14:11 ET by kimschDear Dr., even more than that, if subsidies and incentives are given to farmers to produce corn for ethanol versus producing corn for consumption, the costs of many food items will go up because farmers will get more for ethanol than for food. Consider the many items that contain corn products: All "sugared" soda-pop contains corn syrup and there are many other products sweetened with corn syrup, it's an ingredient in cakes and cookies, candy, beverages other than soda-pop as well. Then there is corn oil and all the products that contain it, and corn flour and tortillas, corn bread, corn meal, and niblets and corn on the cob, and pop corn too. The prices of all these products will go up for ethanol which costs more in fossil fuels to create than it saves by adding it to fossil fuels and it's not really any better for the environment either.
Subsidies for domestic sugar beets are the main reason that most of the candy companies have left the United States. These companies couldn't import cane sugar (high tariffs = sugar beet subsidies) and so they just moved across the border into Canada.
Not to mention beef , pork a
April 3, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Quidnunc SavantNot to mention beef , pork and poultry prices will increase also because they will have to compete for higher feed prices.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
Don't you understand, it's a
April 3, 2007 - 14:41 ET by dscottDon't you understand, it's a Rovian plot to deal with the obesity problem in the country, since sugar is at the heart of the crisis, jack up the price of sugar by creating an artifical shortage from turning sugar into fuel, so companies will put less of it in the foods we eat. Splenda, yummmmm. That evil Karl Rove!!!!
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Something I've been wonderi
April 3, 2007 - 12:26 ET by John in CASomething I've been wondering about for a few months, went looking for the answer this morning and really can't find. What has happened to the commodity price of corn over the last 2-3 years? Does anyone know a good place to find that in a chart form, or have access to that information?
Looking at the corn futures market this morning, it looks like going into 2008 the commodity price is going up, but I'm not real familiar with futures markets.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John, not sure about all that
April 3, 2007 - 12:33 ET by JABJohn, not sure about all that either, I just know that less than three years ago I would walk into my local farm feed store and pay under $3.50 for a 50 pound bag of whole corn, yesterday I paid $7.78 for the same thing.
Sounds as though we might want to invest in those corn futures you were discussing.
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
JAB, you're experience is a
April 3, 2007 - 12:55 ET by John in CAJAB, you're experience is as real world as it gets. After all, you're the guy hanging onto the end of the corn commodity price whip.
Added to your anecdotal evidence, I've heard a couple of others. One being the price of corn tortillas in Mexico getting so expensive some there can't afford that staple of their diet.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
the case of mexico
April 3, 2007 - 13:04 ET by tumbler_2007The fact is, Mexico's gov't has always fixed the price of corn on behalf of the country's poor. Now that corn is much higher-priced, the new administration has merely raised by some small amount the fixed price. Even that cautious move has alarmed everybody in Mexico. The demagogues all see it as a starvation measure, and use it to defame the opposing party, PAN.
It's like Democrats were always saying back in Reagan's day, "The Republicans steal your children's lunches."
The stories I've read, Tumbler
April 3, 2007 - 13:08 ET by RJThe stories I've read, Tumbler, indicate that end user corn prices in Mexico have gone up much more than "some small amount."
we should read some more
April 3, 2007 - 13:16 ET by tumbler_2007I'll try to inform myself; --I only recall what reports were some weeks ago in Mexican journals.
The price of their corn was deliberately set at a pittance before, so that even the humblest household would never face starvation. It might seem an exhorbitant price to some today, compared to the price in the past.
It can't rise higher than the fixed price though. No matter what corn brings on outside markets. It's gov't subsidized.
Read this.This story is all o
April 3, 2007 - 13:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberRead this.
This story is all over the board. But, the basic gist is this: NAFTA and the United States are to blame for illegal immigration, for starving backward-ass farmers, and George Bush is to blame for promoting biofuels.
HA! You're hilarious!
April 3, 2007 - 14:01 ET by tumbler_2007And you're to blame for American bordellos.
You mean, I get credit for th
April 3, 2007 - 14:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou mean, I get credit for them, right?
No TB, crabs, or VD from my girls. And your wife is my top earner.
Don't come to a gunfight with a knife, El Guapo.
Hey! I'm the one around her
April 3, 2007 - 14:15 ET by sarcasmoHey! I'm the one around here who deserves that credit!
JMR
I'm all for sharing that, Sar
April 3, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberI'm all for sharing that, Sarc!
credit to el WASPO
April 3, 2007 - 14:34 ET by tumbler_2007My wife, el WASPO?
I drempt I was standing on your wife's shoulders. Recurring dream. We had fallen in the tychopotamic scum called your house, and I was up to my neck in your maggots.
My dear wife shook me, saying. "Wake up ! It's only a dream! You're hanging round that NB blog too much; stay away, please!"
I said sweetly, Don't worry my love. Just cleaning Roger's plough again. Nasty job but somebody's gotta do it. (He's the resident Mex-basher.)
Wow. This only reinforces wh
April 3, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberWow. This only reinforces what the majority of NBers already know: your brain is one big fajita. Over-cooked in the sol del Baja. You make absolutely no sense, and have serious mental/emotional issues.
No wonder your wife keeps working so cheaply.
Rog, I think you should let
April 3, 2007 - 15:03 ET by MightyMouthRog, I think you should let tumbler "clean your plough", since he is unable to clean your clock!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I've sent Roger a PM
April 3, 2007 - 15:25 ET by tumbler_2007He's not responding yet.
I don't think this line of comedy is called for, or in good taste. Let's cut it out.
Like I said, don't bring a kn
April 3, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberLike I said, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
You are ill-equipped to handle me, yet you try to stir things up, and when it gets demasiado caliente en la cocina, you are the first to cry ¡tío! ¡tío!
Calling people "Nazis" at the drop of a sombrero is a-ok, but bring someone's wife into it, look out! Perhaps that is what it took to finally get through su cabeza por completo de rocas.
So, take your tychopotamic drempt crap home with you, and stop the homoerotic fantasies about cleaning my plough, okay?
i didn't bring a knife, el waspo
April 3, 2007 - 15:53 ET by tumbler_2007Your so-called GUN was a tacky hit at my wife, mister. My wife never said anything to you. Is it your custom among white supremacists to smear the messengers' wives too? Better lay off.
You may suppose I brought a knife to your gun. But I can surprise you. I haven't cried uncle. I've merely tried to defuse a bad situation here. Furthermore I haven't "called" anybody a Nazi; that's an invention of your cry-babies. I took you for a man, el WASPO. You are in fact, pond scum. Here you are, acting exactly like it. The joke is, you really think I'm ''ill-equipt to handle you." --How you flatter yourself, mocozo. Haha! Schrubber, you slay me, with that gunfight of yours. You're all raring to shoot me? In your dreams, go ahead. Shoot.
Wahhhh wahhh wahhh!
April 3, 2007 - 16:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberWahhhh wahhh wahhh!