Posted on 04/03/2007 6:40:12 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
An as yet unpublished report from Ottawa, Canada, suggests that there is absolutely no ecological advantage to using ethanol blends in cars versus conventional unleaded gasoline.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An unpublished federal report appears to undermine the belief that commercially available ethanol-blended fuel produces cleaner emissions than regular gasoline.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?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
call me when that happens. I would hold my breath
From a greenhouse gas prospective, if there isn’t much difference in the exhaust, wouldn’t this mean that ethanol causes cars to pollute more since mpg is less?
More discussion here... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1811456/posts
The article really doesn’t address the claimed savings. Ethanol differs from gasoline in that it recycles atmospheric CO2. The “justification” for it is that all the CO2 put back in the atmosphere was recently pulled out of the atmosphere when the crop was grown to make the stuff. It was never claimed to be cleaner burning, at least when it came to CO2. There are plenty of other reasons to reject Ethanol as the panacea, but this article is a poor argument against it.
At the tailpipe it may not be much different. But since it took 3~5 times as much energy to produce the ethanol compared to gasoline, a lot more pollution was generated before it got to the fuel tank.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^From a greenhouse gas prospective, if there isn’t much difference in the exhaust, wouldn’t this mean that ethanol causes cars to pollute more since mpg is less?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone give this man a little gold star. :-)
As if all of this wasn’t obvious enough. A little bit of math goes a really long way, doesn’t it? LOL
And that’s negating the fact that Ethanol has to be processed. That process requires energy. Which often times involves using oil as the original energy source.
Thanks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The article really doesn’t address the claimed savings. Ethanol differs from gasoline in that it recycles atmospheric CO2. The “justification” for it is that all the CO2 put back in the atmosphere was recently pulled out of the atmosphere when the crop was grown to make the stuff. It was never claimed to be cleaner burning, at least when it came to CO2. There are plenty of other reasons to reject Ethanol as the panacea, but this article is a poor argument against it.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don’t know............. I don’t see very many environmentalists out there railing against china. I don’t think they really care about the environment, it’s about socialism, it’s about getting rid of the evil called oil, it’s about something other than the environment. Destroying capitalism. Pick one or I’m sure you could present something else.
We’re burning our food.
yea I bought corn chips today.....$4 for a small bag....
The article says ethanol/gas were compared at various levels of power/speed, with little difference in emissions. It does NOT say ethanol would cause cars to pollute more. One can infer, however, as it is taking more volume of ethanol than gas to produce a given power level, that ethanol actually does pollute less if measured by volume. But, if looking at pollution levels of the amount of each required to produce a given amount of power, then they are even, or nearly so.
Not if they still want those Archer Daniels Midland commercials on their network.
Aside from Polident and Depends, that about all they have going for them.
In other words, take his little gold star away from him. He does, however, get one attaboy for realizing that ethanol does not solve a problem...........unless you are a corn farmer or have stock in ADM.
What a huge surprise! And related...
Supreme Court Ruling Doesn’t Mean EPA Will Regulate CO2 Emissions
http://www.playfuls.com/news_006146_Supreme_Court_Ruling_Doesnt_Mean_EPA_Will_Regulate_CO2_Emissions.html
Ethanol has a lot of great benefits. Unfortunately, none of them involve cars.
But ethanol is not del;ivered by jihadis chanting, “Death to America.”
“The jump in ethanol use certainly didn’t come about because of a groundswell of popular demand; it came about, like so many bad ideas, because of a government mandate. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly ethanol) be added to the gasoline supply last year. It goes up to 4.7 billion this year and to 7.5 billion in 2012. But ethanol lowers fuel economy—according to the Department of Energy, a gallon of ethanol contains only two-thirds the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. And you’re actually paying more for less performance. It’s difficult... to transport ethanol from its Midwestern home base to far-off markets, and that adds to the price you pay at the pump. Ethanol can’t be sent in an energy-efficient way through pipelines like gasoline can, because it would be contaminated by moisture along the way. Ethanol must be shipped instead by trucks, barges and railroads. And that brings us to ethanol’s environmental impact. After all, shipping by truck, barge or rail uses... well, fossil fuels. So the more ethanol we move, the more fossil fuel we use—which, Al Gore and Company tell us repeatedly, spews the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In addition, all that extra corn farming means more fertilizer and pesticide use, along with increased irrigation. More diesel fuel will be needed to run the tractors and the harvesters. In the end... ethanol may wind up putting about as much carbon dioxide into the air as it takes out. So, from an environmental perspective, we’ll be paying more to more or less maintain the status quo.” —Rebecca Hagelin
“The jump in ethanol use certainly didn’t come about because of a groundswell of popular demand; it came about, like so many bad ideas, because of a government mandate. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly ethanol) be added to the gasoline supply last year. It goes up to 4.7 billion this year and to 7.5 billion in 2012. But ethanol lowers fuel economy—according to the Department of Energy, a gallon of ethanol contains only two-thirds the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. And you’re actually paying more for less performance. It’s difficult... to transport ethanol from its Midwestern home base to far-off markets, and that adds to the price you pay at the pump. Ethanol can’t be sent in an energy-efficient way through pipelines like gasoline can, because it would be contaminated by moisture along the way. Ethanol must be shipped instead by trucks, barges and railroads. And that brings us to ethanol’s environmental impact. After all, shipping by truck, barge or rail uses... well, fossil fuels. So the more ethanol we move, the more fossil fuel we use—which, Al Gore and Company tell us repeatedly, spews the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In addition, all that extra corn farming means more fertilizer and pesticide use, along with increased irrigation. More diesel fuel will be needed to run the tractors and the harvesters. In the end... ethanol may wind up putting about as much carbon dioxide into the air as it takes out. So, from an environmental perspective, we’ll be paying more to more or less maintain the status quo.” —Rebecca Hagelin
That alone is plenty of reason to expand and develop the increased use of the 85/15 blend. While it may not be greener, it is a renewable resource and doesn't involve enriching islamofacists. Let them go back to camel travel when the market demand drops on the ONLY thing they have to offer the modern world.
I agree completely about that. I’m all for telling the petrocracies to f* themselves. Personally, I’d prefer a small car or motorcycle on gas or diesel though.
You will have several choices. At most ethanol can only provide 20%.
It’s not a poor argument. My gas milage goes down 10% when they put their “winter mix” of ethanol in my tank. The whole reason they mandate the stuff is the claim that it burns cleaner in the winter. I have no hope they will dump the crap just because it is shown not to be cleaner.
Of course this stuff is no different. That is why the government is funding it.
But it makes me want to buy some pop corn with every passing exhaust pipe!
your post makes mad sense.
However, if Ethanol is used as a replacement for MTBE, would that get over the ‘speedbumps’ as outlined in your thread?
emand for wood may lead to forest growth, not decline, study says
EurekAlert | 05/01/03 | Brown University
Posted on 05/04/2003 1:17:45 PM EDT by Moonman62
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/905567/posts
Arctic oil: Facts versus Fiction (ANWR)
Senator Frank Murkowski | unknown
Posted on 10/17/2002 1:52:13 PM EDT by alaskanfan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/770968/posts
Mercury in energy-saving bulbs worries scientists [Environmentalists are bad for the environment]
Washington Post | March 28, 2007 | Lisa Von Ahn
Posted on 04/02/2007 10:28:27 PM EDT by grundle
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810958/posts
The Tree SolutionAs Greenpeace expanded to become the world's largest international environmental organization, Moore's star steadily rose and he eventually became vice president of research. Then he did something even more unexpected than joining the organization in the first place. He packed up and quit... In the months before his departure, Moore had begun talking heresy. "The environmental movement had gone astray and lost its perspective on forests," Moore says. "Rather than cutting fewer trees and using less wood, we should be growing more trees and using more wood." Greenpeace branded him an eco-Judas. Now comes the biggest surprise of all. Recently published research suggests that Moore is right. Cutting down old trees could be the best way to thwart global warming.
by Jim Wilson
From early April.
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.