Defending the Truth

Somebody’s been sniffing ethanol
Presidential candidates always fawn over Iowa voters in advance of primary season, but this time around they are playing up the state’s affinity for ethanol. Who can blame them? Ethanol production is worth $2.5 billion to the Hawkeye state, and with politicians far and wide embracing alternative fuel technologies, no one wants to be outdone in singing the praises of the magic corn juice. For instance, Hillary Clinton said in a recent visit that ethanol is “a perfect example” of how we can wean ourselves from foreign oil. Of course, she has voted against measures promoting ethanol production not once, not twice, but 17 times during her six years in the Senate.

Why the change of heart? Environmental issues will loom large in the next presidential contest, and the President’s call to seek alternative fuel technologies has been interpreted by tree huggers to mean that we can power our millions of automobiles on corn by the end of the next decade. If it sounds like a dream, that’s because it is. If we are to cut gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next ten years, we would have to increase ethanol production by 35 billion gallons each year to meet demand. If all the corn grown in the United States were converted to ethanol, we still wouldn’t have enough to meet this figure. What’s more, where will the billions of dollars come from to convert the fuel delivery infrastructure—refineries, pipelines, fueling stations—over to ethanol delivery? Taxes, taxes, taxes.

I get my gas at the Kwik Trip where they sell a blend of petrol and ethanol.

I don't think anyone in truth, Bull, is saying to run our vehicles on 100% ethanol.

But if ethanol is one option, and there are other non-petrolieum options being developed, it is a significant factor in saving the planet and also to make peace by loosing the greedy motives for staking a claim in the Middle East.

OD

Let's remove the blatant hypocrisy of politics from the issue for a moment:


For the last 40 years, our government has paid farmers to produce LESS corn. That policy is stupid. Corn ethanol could & should reverse that.

Burning corn alcohol is multiplied times better for the environment then burning fossil fuels. This should make environmentalists everywhere happy - even if blind partisan hacks like Tyreay have to eat crow because it's Republicans backing the measures.

Corn is not the only source of ethanol. Sugar beets, cane sugar and a whole host of other plants can be used to produce high amounts of alcohol/ethanol.

In addition, soybeans, sunflowers and a whole host of other "high oil content" crops can produce oil to be used fuel diesel vehicles. Those oils gel more quickly in cold climates, but BioDiesel works great in warm climates, and is also much better for the environment.

Throw in the current technology to produce and utilize electric vehicles - the energy for which can be harvested from the thousands of wind-generators that are being erected across the country. Millions of short-trip commuters could be driving 100% electric vehicles, with no emissions whatever.

All in all, we could easily cut by 75% our dependence on foreign oil WITHIN 5 YEARS. As a result, we could collectively "give the finger" to the terrorist regimes we buy crude oil from, and dry them up.

But there's one problem: WE DON'T WANT TO. Capitalism is driven by consumer demand. So until consumers by the millions - that means all of us - change our energy-consumption habits, drive less, and demand better, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Instead, we've got soccer moms yakking on their cell phones, thundering down the highways 75 mph in massive 10 miles per gallon SUVs. We've got insecure men, trying to overcompensate for their perceived penis problems by driving enormous SuperDuty trucks - and driving them alone.


So forget hoping the politicians are going to make it happen. They're not. Consumers are going to make it happen - but not until we pull our heads out of our butts and make changes in our personal lives.


...I'm off the soapbox now...

I ave been leery of ethanol for some time. A while back I read that ethanol burns at a higher temperature that gasoline. It would damage a gasoline engine if used in one without modifications. Now I learn that ethanol is MORE POLLUTING THAN GASOLINE.

HERE IS THE PROOF. What's That Smell?

Hmm.. aren't there tax breaks for people who buy alternative fuel automobiles? Seems like if there aren't, there should be. It'd be a great way to get folks to buy them.

You are right. Ethanol is not the end all solution.
However it is FAR, FAR better for the environment than our current gasoline.
It is a step in the right direction towards an automobile that doesn't pollute at all.

I Said That Ethanol Polutes More That Gasoline

I'd like to see some proof of that.

From what I've read, the key to making Ethanol a viable form of vehicle fuel is in deriving it from cellulose-cornstalks and the straw of grains and grasses-rather than from corn itself.

Read an article in the January '07 issue of Scientific American for an interesting take on ethanol if you can.

Yeah, I suppose that would explain why there are dozens of CORN ethanol plants throughout the Midwest - and dozens more being built right now.