Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts
Business Week Online ^ | Thursday April 27 2006 | Ed Wallace

Posted on 04/27/2006 10:45:52 AM PDT by Brian Allen

Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. But that's not such a good idea

During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program -- 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) -- would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.

Background The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]

If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand ....

(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; Technical
KEYWORDS: communizedfarming; corruption; crime; energy; ethanol; gasoline; oil; votebuying
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last
A not-bad look at the massive fraud that is the addition of grossly energy inefficient, $3.00-per-gallon to produce, ethonol, to $0.63 Cents per gallon production cost gasoline.
1 posted on 04/27/2006 10:45:56 AM PDT by Brian Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
--AMEN--and will the ethanol advocates ever jump on this.

Me--I'll be in the middle of corn country in another few weeks and will carefully observe for any evidence of ethanol or bio-diesel being used in the growing, cultivation, or harvest of corn---

2 posted on 04/27/2006 10:50:14 AM PDT by rellimpank (Don't believe anything about firearms or explosives stated by the mass media---NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

There is a whole other issue not considered by any of the economists. That is that in most of the Great Plains states, groundwater is used to grow the crops. That water is being depleted and not replaced. Using water to grow crops to produce vehicle fuel is to me a waste. It may make economical sense (then again it may not), but the water is irreplacable for use by individual farms, communities and for use in other crops. Here are some references:

http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/ogallala_aquifer.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gcp/issues/society/ogallala/ogallala.html

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-1/2003-1-04.pdf (Conserving the Ogallala Aquifer: Efficiency, Equity and Moral Motives)

http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/3scisay2.html (Scientists say drought accelerating depletion of Ogallala Aquifer)

Read the first page of the first reference for some statistics. Sobering what depletion of the aquifer will mean for our agriculture.


3 posted on 04/27/2006 11:03:46 AM PDT by CedarDave (DemocRATs- the CULTURE OF TREASON! If it wasn't for double standards, democrats would have NONE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

You've nailed it.


4 posted on 04/27/2006 11:07:45 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

The author of this article, Ed Wallace, has a show Saturdays 8AM to 1PM on www.klif.com and a website at insidequotmotive.com.


5 posted on 04/27/2006 11:08:22 AM PDT by pikachu (For every action there is an equal and opposite government program)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
That water is being depleted and not replaced.

It doesn't rain out that way? :)
6 posted on 04/27/2006 11:09:51 AM PDT by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
I'll be in the middle of corn country in another few weeks

watch out for these guys... Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

7 posted on 04/27/2006 11:14:38 AM PDT by Rakkasan1 (lead ,follow or get out of the majority.start with our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

And to this travesty may we add the prospect of damage caused by ethanol to automotive/fuel systems? Boat owners are already starting to discover an unpleasant truth as some fiberglass fuel tanks "dissolve" into sludge when ethanol is introduced. Of course there is no provision to exclude marine fuel from this short sighted special interest group driven government-mandated ethanol additive program.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQK/is_1_11/ai_n16019367


8 posted on 04/27/2006 11:17:40 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Ethanol is used for powering the driver, not the vehicle.


9 posted on 04/27/2006 11:21:03 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

what no one sees is that there is a .51 tax on each gallon of ethynol, thanks to the corn lobbyists. the refining cost is unbelievable because of the greedy hands in the pot. If we could make the fuel from sugar cane, well, that would be different but nothing's going to change until our government decides to quit politicizing the problem and starts focusing on how to get this country independent of foreign oil.


10 posted on 04/27/2006 11:23:44 AM PDT by immigration lady (defeat is only momentary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

What a mess--another disgraceful sellout by congress to special interests, at our expense.


11 posted on 04/27/2006 11:29:30 AM PDT by defenderSD ( Wishing, hoping, and praying that Saddam will not nuke us is not a national security policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD
What a mess--another disgraceful sellout by congress to special interests, at our expense.

The article is in Business Weak, cousin to Newsweak. Not exactly what you would call a reputable source. Glancing through it, I see the author uses a study whose authors declared an "oopsy" and revised their work. The previous study lives on, and will for years and years.
12 posted on 04/27/2006 11:35:51 AM PDT by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Gee, that paints a cheery picture, doesn't it? And I can't see where it's wrong, either - pretty much everyone agrees the aquifers are being drained and polluted. Do you suppose anything will be done about it before they're sucked dry?


13 posted on 04/27/2006 11:37:36 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

Another problem that the Left-Wing Enviroterrorists won't talk about - With the promotion and increased use of alternative fuels, i.e., corn and sugar cane based ethanol, soy bean and palm oils for blended diesel fuels, farmers in South America and elsewhere are clearcutting thousands of acres of pristine forest to meet the demand for these "greener" fuels.

Wouldn't a more sensible and more environmentally friendly solution (for the US) be to drill in ANWAR. So much for saving the Earth.


14 posted on 04/27/2006 11:53:09 AM PDT by Daytyn71 (Live Free or Die!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40
I don't see any rationale whatsoever for the ethanol additive mandate. It actually increases pollution, incredibly, and it takes more energy to produce and distribute it than is contained in the ethanol. This mandate needs to be repealed ASAP. This is another shameful fraud forced on the American people by a corrupt US congress. Repeal of the ethanol mandate is a GREAT position for Republicans to take in the November election, but they have to make sure they explain that ethanol actually increases air pollution (and thus does nothing other than boost the profits of agri-business).

What study are you saying is incorrect and was later revised?

15 posted on 04/27/2006 11:57:27 AM PDT by defenderSD ( Wishing, hoping, and praying that Saddam will not nuke us is not a national security policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD
What study are you saying is incorrect and was later revised?

The very one you use that says it takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get back.
16 posted on 04/27/2006 12:01:07 PM PDT by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: P-40

OK, how is that study incorrect?


17 posted on 04/27/2006 12:02:20 PM PDT by defenderSD ( Wishing, hoping, and praying that Saddam will not nuke us is not a national security policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Daytyn71
Another problem that the Left-Wing Enviroterrorists won't talk about

They have no interest in "green" fuel. If there is fuel, there will be roads.
18 posted on 04/27/2006 12:02:43 PM PDT by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Don't forget the energy used to transport the ethanol to blending plants, because it can't be mixed in at large refineries and shipped through pipelines as blended gas. This looks like a completely uneconomical mess to me.


19 posted on 04/27/2006 12:04:11 PM PDT by defenderSD ( Wishing, hoping, and praying that Saddam will not nuke us is not a national security policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD
OK, how is that study incorrect?

It is a dated study but I remember the rate of application of lime was the biggest error. Not taking into account that corn is grown differently in different areas was not addressed that I know of.
20 posted on 04/27/2006 12:04:42 PM PDT by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson