Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel Is Ethanol good for the environment?
165 messages, Last post on Sep 24, 2008 at 5:25 AM
You are in the Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 4:31 am) ethanol production does not enhance energy security, is not a renewable energy source, is not an economical fuel, and does not ensure clean air...its production uses land suitable for crop production and causes environmental degradation." http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/sk/April28-04.htm
|
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 4:31 am) You keep Ethanol in the Midwest we don't want it in CA. It is not a left right biased issue, it is a "buying votes from the farmers" issue. If you don't consider "Friends of the Earth" a viable Organization, you will probably continue to believe that it is not costing more to produce than it is worth. The only positive spin you will find on Ethanol is from the folks that are profiteering from it. “If the ethanol producers and the corn growers weren’t benefiting from this, we wouldn’t be doing it,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., last week. “There’s no policy reason to do this.” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540967/
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 29, 2004 5:50 am) SHOW ME THE DATA! Being shoveled digested information serves no purpose but to entertain. Not knowing how the conclusion was come to is clearly evidence of a non-objective stance. JOHN
|
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 6:03 am) What is the 52 cents per gallon subsidy? That comes out of my taxes. you should be paying that with every gallon you purchase, not me. As a MN farmer I can tell you the only way to plant corn year after year is with huge amounts of chemical fertilizer. That in itself is very harmful to the ground water in YOUR state. ADM does not care if you have lousy water. My property was right on the Long Prairie River and we refused to use any chemicals that would leech into the river. Only the stuff our cattle produced. You will have a hard time finding data that is current because it is hidden in a cloak of deception. No one in the business is going to tell you they are spending 2 bucks to produce a bucks worth of Ethanol. Not when Uncle Sam has a 5 billion dollar subsidy sitting on the table for the next 8 years. Alaska got an exemption because it caused way more ice fog in the winter during testing. I'm surprised you don't see more in Minneapolis in the winter.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 29, 2004 6:31 am) Yet, you believe the info you have. What's wrong with that picture? The EPA and select colleges perform studies of that nature all the time. They publicly publish their findings. Let's see those. JOHN
|
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 6:37 am) Nothing is wrong with that picture. Cornell University's study is the only viable study that has been made public. Show me a study where Ethanol is making money and does not have an adverse environmental impact. Here is an article touting the virtues of Ethanol. What's wrong with this picture? More than 60% of the world’s supply of ethanol is estimated to be derived from sugar, with Brazil – a sugarcane growing country – in the lead. I see nothing wrong with clearing the rainforset to plant Sugarcane, duh!!! http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_old_idea_made/
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 29, 2004 6:49 am) You are the one insisting the ALL OR NONE approach, not me. Clearly, we have different goals. JOHN
|
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy Study indicates that ethanol is responsible for more nitrous oxide. Now let me research Biodiesel for you..... http://www.qctimes.com/qcbizjournal/internal.php?story_id=1030270- &l=1&t=Agriculture&c=93,1030270 |
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 7:10 am) Where did you get that impression? I already pay higher prices for fuel in CA than you do. I don't want the added burden of transporting Ethanol for some contrived plan to pull the Midwest out of the doldrums. I am looking for viable alternatives to our dependence on foriegn oil. If we are going to use our coal and Natural gas to produce Ethanol, why not just burn the Natural Gas in the car to start with. Why pass it through several layers of bureaucracy first and come out with a less environmentally sound product. That is like making hydrogen from Natural Gas. Why bother, just burn the gas to start with. There is no way we will eliminate foreign oil in our lifetime. I am all for reducing the consumption. There are too many opposing forces at every step. No matter what technology or resource is used someone is not going to like it and put roadblocks in the way. Just as you would block the use of diesel because of your bias toward hybrid/ethanol burning vehicles. I think your use of those resources is great. You get great mileage from your Prius and I applaud that. There are other options that are good also. I want them all to have an equal chance to succeed.
|
|
|
Hello? Anyone care to post the links to the actual data on ethanol? I can make a statement here that Ethanol is really good and 100 percent renewable and great for the environment. Hmmm, it seems I didn't post any supporting data (and I'm not talking supporting opinions but rather scientific data). Yet under the rules most people seem to use here, that statement must obiously be true. For the record, the above is in jest, I have no position on ethanol ... because I haven't seen conclusive data either way. However I do have a position on scientific evidence... I am enthusiastically in favor of it! |
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel Is Ethanol good for the environment?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
